ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Rapid Detection and Quantification of Adulterants in Fruit Juices Using Machine Learning Tools and Spectroscopy Data.
Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence driven diet-intestinal microbiota-host health integration: A four-dimensional paradigm for advancing host wellness research.iMetaOmics · 2026Review
- Smart detection of juice adulteration: An approach based on ion mobility spectrometry and machine learning.Journal of the science of food and agriculture · 2026Article
- Rapid detection of synthetic pigments in black tea using hyperspectral imaging technology and machine learning.Food chemistry: X · 2025Article
- The Journey of Artificial Intelligence in Food Authentication: From Label Attribute to Fraud Detection.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Novel Method Based on Ion Mobility Spectrometry Combined with Machine Learning for the Discrimination of Fruit Juices.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Rapid and Automated Method for Detecting and Quantifying Adulterations in High-Quality Honey Using Vis-NIRs in Combination with Machine Learning.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Fruit juice production is one of the most important sectors in the beverage industry, and its adulteration by adding cheaper juices is very common. This study presents a methodology based on the combination of machine learning models and near-infrared spectroscopy for the detection and quantification of juice-to-juice adulteration. We evaluated 100% squeezed apple, pineapple, and orange juices, which were adulterated with grape juice at different percentages (5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%, 40%, and 50%). The spectroscopic data have been combined with different machine learning tools to develop predictive models for the control of the juice quality. The use of non-supervised techniques, specifically model-based clustering, revealed a grouping trend of the samples depending on the type of juice. The use of supervised techniques such as random forest and linear discriminant analysis models has allowed for the detection of the adulterated samples with an accuracy of 98% in the test set. In addition, a Boruta algorithm was applied which selected 89 variables as significant for adulterant quantification, and support vector regression achieved a regression coefficient of 0.989 and a root mean squared error of 1.683 in the test set. These results show the suitability of the machine learning tools combined with spectroscopic data as a screening method for the quality control of fruit juices. In addition, a prototype application has been developed to share the models with other users and facilitate the detection and quantification of adulteration in juices.
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.