Applications of imaging systems for the assessment of quality characteristics of bread and other baked goods: A review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the most widely researched topics in the food industry is bread quality analysis. Different techniques have been developed to assess the quality characteristics of bakery products. However, in the last few decades, the advancement in sensor and computational technologies has increased the use of computer vision to analyze food quality (e.g., bakery products). Despite a large number of publications on the application of imaging methods in the bakery industry, comprehensive reviews detailing the use of conventional analytical techniques and imaging methods for the quality analysis of baked goods are limited. Therefore, this review aims to critically analyze the conventional methods and explore the potential of imaging techniques for the quality assessment of baked products. This review provides an in-depth assessment of the different conventional techniques used for the quality analysis of baked goods which include methods to record the physical characteristics of bread and analyze its quality, sensory-based methods, nutritional-based methods, and the use of dough rheological data for end-product quality prediction. Furthermore, an overview of the image processing stages is presented herein. We also discuss, comprehensively, the applications of imaging techniques for assessing the quality of bread and other baked goods. These applications include studying and predicting baked goods' quality characteristics (color, texture, size, and shape) and classifying them based on these features. The limitations of both conventional techniques (e.g., destructive, laborious, error-prone, and expensive) and imaging methods (e.g., illumination, humidity, and noise) and the future direction of the use of imaging methods for quality analysis of bakery products are discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".