Detection of dextran, maltodextrin and soluble starch in the adulterated Lycium barbarum polysaccharides (LBPs) using Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) and machine learning models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to the similar chemical structures and physicochemical properties, it is challenging to distinguish dextran, maltodextrin, and soluble starch from the polysaccharide products of plant origin, such as Lycium barbarum polysaccharides (LBPs). Using the first-order derivatives of Fourier-transformed infrared spectroscopy (FTIR, wave range 1800–400 cm −1 ), this study proposed a two-step pipeline to identify dextran, maltodextrin, and soluble starch from adulterated LBPs samples qualitatively and quantitatively. We applied principal component analysis (PCA) to reduce the dimensionality of FTIR features. For the qualitative step, a set of machine learning models, including logistic regression, support vector machine (SVM), Naïve Bayes, and partial least squares (PLS), were used to classify the adulterants. For the quantitative step, linear regression, LASSO, random forest, and PLS were used to predict the concentration of LBPs adulterants. The results showed that logistic regression and SVM are suitable for classifying adulterants, and random forests is superior for predicting adulterant concentrations. This would be the first attempt to discriminate the adulterants from the polysaccharide's product of plant origin. The proposed two-step methods can be easily extended to other applications for the quantitative and qualitative detection of samples from adulterants with similar chemical structures.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".