MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792353639 · doi:10.1016/j.fitote.2018.02.006

FT-NIR characterization with chemometric analyses to differentiate goldenseal from common adulterants

2018· article· en· W2792353639 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Liu, Jamie Finley, Joseph M. Betz, Paula N. Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueFitoterapia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPartial least squares regressionCoptis chinensisPrincipal component analysisMathematicsChemometricsTraditional medicineArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMachine learningStatisticsMedicineTraditional Chinese medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Goldenseal (Hydrastis canadensis L.) has been a popular herb since the 1970s, with a US market share of over $32 million in 2014. Wild goldenseal has been listed in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species for decades. Limits in supply and greed for profit have led to adulteration with similar but more accessible and inexpensive plant materials. Fourier transform near-infrared spectroscopy (FT-NIR) coupled with three different chemometric models, partial least squares (PLS) regression, soft independent modeling of class analogy (SIMCA), and moving window principal component analysis (MW-PCA) provide fast, simple, nondestructive approaches to differentiating pure goldenseal from 4 common pure adulterants (yellow dock, yellow root, coptis, Oregon grape). All three models successfully differentiated authentic goldenseal from adulterants. The models were t-tested for detection of goldenseal intentionally mixed with individual adulterants at 2% to 95% theoretical levels made computationally. The PLS model was unable to detect adulterants mixed with goldenseal at any level. The SIMCA model was the best for detection of yellow root and Oregon grape adulteration in goldenseal, as low as 10%. The MW-PCA model proved best for detection of yellow dock at ≥ 15% and coptis adulteration ≥5% in goldenseal. This study demonstrates that NIR spectroscopy coupled with chemometric analyses is a good tool for industry and investigators to implement for rapid detection of goldenseal adulteration in the marketplace, but also indicates that the specific approach to chemometric analysis must be evaluated and selected on a case-by-case basis in order to achieve useful sensitivity and specificity.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations18
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFitoterapiaSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207