Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41028774›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Designing of guava quality classification model based on ANOVA and machine learning.

Abiban Kumari, Jaswinder Singh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 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

2 authors.

Abiban KumariDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar, Haryana, 125001, India. abibanlangaya@gmail.com.
Jaswinder SinghDepartment of Computer Science and Engineering, Guru Jambheshwar University of Science and Technology, Hisar, Haryana, 125001, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The precise maturity quality classification of guava is crucial at farm level, retail, storage, and supply chain. The manual classification causes substantial postharvest losses, which increases the demand for material and resources. Therefore, the present study proposed an automated, precise, and accurate model for quality classification according to the maturity stages (Green, Mature Green, Ripe) of three varieties (Local Sindhi, Riyali, Thadhrami) of guava. The study aimed to develop a precise, accurate and automated model for the classification of guava according to their maturity stages. The guava images were used to extract color, shape, and texture features. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was used for the selection of important features. The six different machine learning (ML) classifiers; Artificial Neural Network (ANN), k-Nearest Neighbor (KNN), Support Vector Machine (SVM), Cubic SVM, Quadratic SVM, and Random Forest (RF) were used to find out the best classifier for maturity classification. Among the proposed classifiers, the RF classifier was found to be the best classifier for all three varieties of guava. The Quadratic SVM classifier showed the lowest classification accuracy. The study concluded that RF classifier was found to be a robust model for the maturity classification of guava.

Indexed as

ANOVAFood qualityGuava maturity classificationMachine learningSegregationSVM/KNN/ANN/RF

Identifiers

PMID41028774
PMCPMC12484561

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.