MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2605780698 · doi:10.1007/s11745-017-4250-5

First Application of Newly Developed FT‐NIR Spectroscopic Methodology to Predict Authenticity of Extra Virgin Olive Oil Retail Products in the USA

2017· article· en· W2605780698 on OpenAlexaff
Magdi M. Mossoba, Hormoz Azizian, Ali Reza Fardin‐Kia, Sanjeewa R. Karunathilaka, John K. G. Kramer

Bibliographic record

VenueLipids · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOlive oilFood and drug administrationFood scienceOleic acidDeep fryingChemistryMathematicsBiochemistryStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Economically motivated adulteration (EMA) of extra virgin olive oils (EVOO) has been a worldwide problem and a concern for government regulators for a long time. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is mandated to protect the US public against intentional adulteration of foods and has jurisdiction over deceptive label declarations. To detect EMA of olive oil and address food safety vulnerabilities, we used a previously developed rapid screening methodology to authenticate EVOO. For the first time, a recently developed FT-NIR spectroscopic methodology in conjunction with partial least squares analysis was applied to commercial products labeled EVOO purchased in College Park, MD, USA to rapidly predict whether they are authentic, potentially mixed with refined olive oil (RO) or other vegetable oil(s), or are of lower quality. Of the 88 commercial products labeled EVOO that were assessed according to published specified ranges, 33 (37.5%) satisfied the three published FT-NIR requirements identified for authentic EVOO products which included the purity test. This test was based on limits established for the contents of three potential adulterants, oils high in linoleic acid (OH-LNA), oils high in oleic acid (OH-OLA), palm olein (PO), and/or RO. The remaining 55 samples (62.5%) did not meet one or more of the criteria established for authentic EVOO. The breakdown of the 55 products was EVOO potentially mixed with OH-LNA (25.5%), OH-OLA (10.9%), PO (5.4%), RO (25.5%), or a combination of any of these four (32.7%). If assessments had been based strictly on whether the fatty acid composition was within the established ranges set by the International Olive Council (IOC), less than 10% would have been identified as non-EVOO. These findings are significant not only because they were consistent with previously published data based on the results of two sensory panels that were accredited by IOC but more importantly each measurement/analysis was accomplished in less than 5 min.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLipidsSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207