ArticlePloS one2025
Odor classification: Exploring feature performance and imbalanced data learning techniques.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Machine learning for smell: ordinal odor strength prediction of molecular perfumery components.RSC advances · 2026Article
- Article
- Odors as cognitive constructs: history of odor classification and attempts to map odor percepts to physical and chemical parameters.Chemical senses · 2025Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This research delves into olfaction, a sensory modality that remains complex and inadequately understood. We aim to fill in two gaps in recent studies that attempted to use machine learning and deep learning approaches to predict human smell perception. The first one is that molecules are usually represented with molecular fingerprints, mass spectra, and vibrational spectra; however, the influence of the selected representation method on predictive performance is inadequately documented in direct comparative studies. To fill this gap, we assembled a large novel dataset of 2606 molecules with three kinds of features: mass spectra (MS), vibrational spectra (VS) and molecular fingerprint features (FP). We evaluated their performance using four different multi-label classification models. The second objective is to address an inherent challenge in odor classification multi-label datasets (MLD)-the issue of class imbalance by random resampling techniques and an explainable, cost-sensitive multilayer perceptron model (CSMLP). Experimental results suggest significantly better performance of the molecular fingerprint-based features compared with mass and vibrational spectra with the micro-averaged F1 evaluation metric. The proposed resampling techniques and cost-sensitive model outperform the results of previous studies. We also report the predictive performance of multimodal features obtained by fusing the three mentioned features. This comprehensive and systematic study compares the predictive performance for odor classification of different features and utilises a multifaceted approach to deal with data imbalance. Our explainable model sheds further light on features and odour relations. The results hold the potential to guide the development of the electric nose and our dataset will be made publicly available.
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.