MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404528472 · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2024.115347

Infrared spectroscopy and chemometrics for predicting commercial categories of virgin olive oils and supporting the panel test

2024· article· en· W4404528472 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Ilaria Grigoletto, Chiara Cevoli, Anastasios Koidis, Tullia Gallina Toschi, Enrico Valli

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Research International · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityUniversità di BolognaQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsChemometricsOlive oilTest (biology)ChemistryChromatographyFood scienceBiologyBotany

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Screening methods to limit sample numbers required for Panel test classification. • A battery of spectral techniques was applied (FT-IR, NIR, Raman). • Oils’ spectral information can be used as a fingerprint. • FT-IR data and PLS-DA models were shown effective at classifying VOOs. • Very good prediction performance of the models (81–95%) was observed. The aim of this study was to create rapid and sustainable instrumental methods for screening virgin olive oils (VOOs) to support the Panel test. The Panel test is the official sensory method used in EU regulations to determine the commercial category of VOOs. The Panel test is based on a time-consuming and expensive approach, so reducing the number of samples to be analysed is crucial. Spectroscopy offers a potential solution for quickly determining VOOs composition and predicting their quality grade. In this context, three spectroscopic techniques were explored: Near-Infrared (NIR), Fourier-Transform Infrared (FT-IR), and Raman spectroscopy. A dataset of 100 VOOs samples, categorized into the three official grades (extra virgin, EVOO, virgin, VOO and lampante, LOO) established in EU, based on the Panel test results, was analysed. An initial analysis of all spectra revealed typical for triacylglycerols molecular vibrations and not good variability between types of samples, indicating low specificity. However, FT-IR data paired with two different Partial Least Squares-Discriminant Analysis (PLS-DA) models – one differentiating LOO from non-LOO (VOO and EVOO) and another distinguishing LOO from VOO – yielded promising results. Cross-validation indicated successful sample classification with percentages ranging from 81% to 96%, in which LOO vs. no-LOO model showed the highest performance. These findings suggest that FT-IR coupled with chemometric analysis holds promise, particularly for discriminating LOO (inedible) from the higher-quality grade VOO and EVOO categories. Further research efforts are needed to possibly make the herein developed models more robust and potentially extend their application to differentiate all three VOO quality grades.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.465

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Research InternationalSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207