ArticleFood chemistry: X2026
Pyrazine-based fingerprinting for geographical origin discrimination of coffee: integrating chemometrics and machine learning.
Article in Food chemistry: X, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To improve the accuracy of coffee origin authentication, we developed a pyrazine-targeted fingerprinting approach that synergistically integrates high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), chemometrics, and machine learning for origin discrimination. After validating the HPLC fingerprinting method, we profiled 180 batches, identifying nine shared pyrazine peaks. Based on the proposed fingerprint, chemometric analyses partitioned the 180 batches into five clusters and identified five discriminant pyrazine components. Five machine-learning models were developed; the deep neural network (DNN) performed best, achieving 91.7% accuracy on an internal hold-out validation set, 88.33% mean accuracy in 5-fold cross-validation, and 85.0% accuracy on an independent external test set from a different harvest batch (
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.