Comparison of the Potential Abilities of Three Spectroscopy Methods: Near-Infrared, Mid-Infrared, and Molecular Fluorescence, to Predict Carotenoid, Vitamin and Fatty Acid Contents in Cow Milk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this work is to compare the ability of three spectroscopy techniques: molecular fluorescence, near-infrared (NIR), and mid-infrared with attenuated total reflectance (MIR-ATR) spectroscopy to predict the concentrations of 8 carotenoids, 6 vitamins and 22 fatty acids (FA) in cow’s milk. A dataset was built through the analysis of 242 frozen milk samples from different experiments. The milk compounds were analysed using reference methods and by NIR, MIR-ATR, and fluorescence to establish different predictive models. NIR spectroscopy allowed for better prediction of cis9-β-carotene, β-cryptoxanthin and the sum of carotenoids than the other techniques, with a coefficient of cross-validation in calibration (R2CV) > 0.60 and a coefficient of determination in validation (R2V) > 0.50. Their standard errors of prediction (SEP) were equal to 0.01, except for the sum of carotenoids (SEP = 0.15). However, MIR-ATR and fluorescence seem usable for the prediction of lutein and all-trans-β-carotene, respectively. These three spectroscopy methods did not allow us to predict (R2CV < 0.30) vitamin contents except, for vitamin A (the best R²CV = 0.65 with NIR and SEP = 0.15) and α-tocopherol (the best R²CV = 0.56 with MIR-ATR and SEP = 0.41), but all R²V were <0.30. NIR spectroscopy yielded the best prediction of the selected milk FA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".