ArticleFood science & nutrition2021
Artificial bionic taste sensors coupled with chemometrics for rapid detection of beef adulteration.
Article in Food science & nutrition, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intelligent Gas Sensors for Food Safety and Quality Monitoring: Advances, Applications, and Future Directions.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Innovative Technologies Reshaping Meat Industrialization: Challenges and Opportunities in the Intelligent Era.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Research Progress on Nanotechnology-Driven Enzyme Biosensors for Electrochemical Detection of Biological Pollution and Food Contaminants.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Predicting Porosity in Grain Compression Experiments Using Random Forest and Metaheuristic Optimization Algorithms.Food science & nutrition · 2025Article
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Food Industry.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Automated detection of stale beef from electronic nose data.Food science & nutrition · 2024Article
- Metabolomics-Based Analysis of the Major Taste Contributors of Meat by Comparing Differences in Muscle Tissue between Chickens and Common Livestock Species.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- A Droplet Digital PCR Based Approach for Identification and Quantification of Porcine and Chicken Derivatives in Beef.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Mutton Adulteration under the Effect of Mutton Flavour Essence Using Hyperspectral Imaging Combined with Machine Learning and Sparrow Search Algorithm.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Authentication of duck blood tofu binary and ternary adulterated with cow and pig blood-based gel using Fourier transform near-infrared coupled with fast chemometrics.Frontiers in nutrition · 2022Article
- Artificial bionic taste sensors coupled with chemometrics for rapid detection of beef adulteration.Food science & nutrition · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to investigate the potential of taste sensors coupled with chemometrics for rapid determination of beef adulteration. A total of 228 minced meat samples were prepared and analyzed via raw ground beef mixed separately with chicken, duck, and pork in the range of 0 ~ 50% by weight at 10% intervals. Total sugars, protein, fat, and ash contents were also measured to validate the differences between raw meats. For sensing the water-soluble chemicals in the meats, an electronic tongue based on multifrequency large-amplitude pulses and six metal electrodes (platinum, gold, palladium, tungsten, titanium, and silver) was employed. Fisher linear discriminant analysis (Fisher LDA) and extreme learning machine (ELM) were used to model the identification of raw and the adulterated meats. While an adulterant was detected, the level of adulteration was predicted using partial least squares (PLS) and ELM and the results compared. The results showed that superior recognition models derived from ELM were obtained, as the recognition rates for the independent samples in different meat groups were all over 90%; ELM models were more precisely than PLS models for prediction of the adulteration levels of beef mixed with chicken, duck, and pork, with root mean squares error for the independent samples of 0.33, 0.18, and 0.38% and coefficients of variance of 0.914, 0.956, and 0.928, respectively. The results suggested that taste sensors combined with ELM could be useful in the rapid detection of beef adulterated with other meats.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.