Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40807376›Full record

ArticleMolecules (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Machine Learning in Sensory Analysis of Mead-A Case Study: Ensembles of Classifiers.

Krzysztof Przybył, Daria Cicha-Wojciechowicz, Natalia Drabińska, Małgorzata Anna Majcher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Molecules (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Krzysztof PrzybyłFaculty of Food Science and Nutrition, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 31, 60-624 Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-2535-8370
Daria Cicha-WojciechowiczFaculty of Food Science and Nutrition, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 31, 60-624 Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0000-0002-0166-2722
Natalia DrabińskaFaculty of Food Science and Nutrition, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 31, 60-624 Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-5324-5982
Małgorzata Anna MajcherFaculty of Food Science and Nutrition, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Wojska Polskiego 31, 60-624 Poznań, Poland.ORCID 0000-0003-4234-7881

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim was to explore using machine learning (including cluster mapping and k-means methods) to classify types of mead based on sensory analysis and aromatic compounds. Machine learning is a modern tool that helps with detailed analysis, especially because verifying aromatic compounds is challenging. In the first stage, a cluster map analysis was conducted, allowing for the exploratory identification of the most characteristic features of mead. Based on this, k-means clustering was performed to evaluate how well the identified sensory features align with logically consistent groups of observations. In the next stage, experiments were carried out to classify the type of mead using algorithms such as Random Forest (RF), adaptive boosting (AdaBoost), Bootstrap aggregation (Bagging), K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN), and Decision Tree (DT). The analysis revealed that the RF and KNN algorithms were the most effective in classifying mead based on sensory characteristics, achieving the highest accuracy. In contrast, the AdaBoost algorithm consistently produced the lowest accuracy results. However, the Decision Tree algorithm achieved the highest accuracy value (0.909), demonstrating its potential for precise classification based on aroma characteristics. The error matrix analysis also indicated that acacia mead was easier for the algorithms to identify than tilia or buckwheat mead. The results show the potential of combining an exploratory approach (cluster map with the k-means method) with machine learning. It is also important to focus on selecting and optimizing classification models used in practice because, as the results so far indicate, choosing the right algorithm greatly affects the success of mead identification.

Indexed as

ensembles of classifiersmachine learningmead aromaodor-active compoundssensory analysis

Identifiers

PMID40807376
PMCPMC12348089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.