ArticlePeerJ. Computer science2025
Comparison of deep learning models in automatic classification of coffee bean species.
Article in PeerJ. Computer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Automated detection of defective coffee beans based on improved YOLOv10 framework.Current research in food science · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As one of the most widely consumed beverages worldwide, coffee is characterized by its diverse flavor profiles and complex production processes. In this study, deep learning-based image processing techniques are employed for the automatic classification of coffee bean species with high accuracy. To achieve this, images of three different coffee bean species (Starbucks Pike Place, Espresso, and Kenya) were classified using five CNN-based models: Xception, DenseNet201, InceptionV3, InceptionResNetV2, and DenseNet121. The dataset comprises 1,554 coffee bean images. Cross-validation was applied to assess the models' performance, and classification accuracy was evaluated using performance metrics. Among the tested models, InceptionV3 achieved the highest classification accuracy (93%) and precision (95%), with the lowest loss rate (0.12), making it the most effective model in this study. As a result of the experiments, the average classification success rates of the models were determined as follows: 93% for InceptionV3, 92% for DenseNet121, 91% for Xception, 91% for InceptionResNetV2, and 90% for DenseNet201. These findings indicate that InceptionV3 demonstrates the highest performance. It is anticipated that this study will make significant contributions to applications in coffee bean classification.
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.