ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Improved Shell Color Index for Chicken Eggs with Blue-green Shells Based on Machine Learning Analysis.
Article in Foods (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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Shell color is a commercially valuable trait in eggs, and blue-green eggshells typically exhibit multiple color subtypes. To explore the relationship between the CIELab system and visual color classification and develop simplified discrimination indices, 2274 blue-green eggs across seven batches were selected. The L*, a*, and b* values of each egg were measured, and average visual classification (AveObs) was calculated from four numeric categories (Light = 1, Blue = 2, Green = 3, Olive = 4) separately assigned by four observers. After batch correction using ComBat, four algorithms-linear discriminant analysis (LDA), random forest (RF), support vector machine (SVM), and neural network (NNET)-were compared. Correction substantially reduced the coefficients of variation of the L*, a*, and b* values. Correlations emerged: L* and b* (-0.722), a* and b* (0.451), and L* and a* (-0.088), while correlations of the L*, a*, and b* values with AveObs were -0.713, 0.218, and 0.771, respectively. The LDA model achieved superior comprehensive performance across all data scenarios, with the highest accuracy and efficiency as compared to the SVM, NNET, and RF models. Among the LDA functions, LD1 explained 78.53% of the variance, with L*, a*, and b* coefficients of -0.134, 0.063, and 0.349, respectively (ratio ≈ 1:0.47:2.60). Simplified formulas based on the L*, a*, and b* values were constructed and compared to the existing indices C* (=a*2+b*2) and SCI (=L* - a* - b*). The correlation between L* - 2b* and AveObs was -0.803, similar to those for C* (0.797) and SCI (-0.782), while the correlation between L* - 4C* and AveObs was -0.810, significantly higher than that for SCI (
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.