ArticleNPJ science of food2023
Rapid analysis of meat floss origin using a supervised machine learning-based electronic nose towards food authentication.
Article in NPJ science of food, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- AI-Driven Nondestructive Measurement Technologies for Meat Quality and Safety: A Review.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The future of digital innovation in transforming food safety systems in the developing world.NPJ science of food · 2026Review
- Storage temperature and quality dynamics of sun-aged red date vinegar beverage.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
- Production Systems and Feeding Strategies in the Aromatic Fingerprinting of Animal-Derived Foods: Invited Review.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Intelligent Gas Sensors for Food Safety and Quality Monitoring: Advances, Applications, and Future Directions.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Geographical origin discrimination of Chenpi using machine learning and enhanced mid-level data fusion.NPJ science of food · 2025Article
- Overcoming the Limits of Cross-Sensitivity: Pattern Recognition Methods for Chemiresistive Gas Sensor Array.Nano-micro letters · 2024Review
- Application of machine learning approach on halal meat authentication principle, challenges, and prospects: A review.Heliyon · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Authentication of meat floss origin has been highly critical for its consumers due to existing potential risks of having allergic diseases or religion perspective related to pork-containing foods. Herein, we developed and assessed a compact portable electronic nose (e-nose) comprising gas sensor array and supervised machine learning with a window time slicing method to sniff and to classify different meat floss products. We evaluated four different supervised learning methods for data classification (i.e., linear discriminant analysis (LDA), quadratic discriminant analysis (QDA), k-nearest neighbors (k-NN), and random forest (RF)). Among them, an LDA model equipped with five-window-extracted feature yielded the highest accuracy values of >99% for both validation and testing data in discriminating beef, chicken, and pork flosses. The obtained e-nose results were correlated and confirmed with the spectral data from Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) measurements. We found that beef and chicken had similar compound groups (i.e., hydrocarbons and alcohol). Meanwhile, aldehyde compounds (e.g., dodecanal and 9-octadecanal) were found to be dominant in pork products. Based on its performance evaluation, the developed e-nose system shows promising results in food authenticity testing, which paves the way for ubiquitously detecting deception and food fraud attempts.
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.