ArticleScientific reports2026
Research on the spectral detection effect and data fusion of small white apricot quality based on different detection distances.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study systematically investigated the influence of different detection distances on the spectral detection models of moisture content and Soluble Solid Content in small white apricots, aiming to provide distance parameter references for the practical application of portable spectrometers. Using 98 samples of small white apricots as the subjects, visible/near-infrared diffuse reflectance spectra were collected at five distances of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 m using a self-built adjustable distance platform. During the modeling process, different distances are treated as external variables, and spectral reflectance data at various distances are used as inputs for the predictive model, which is then followed by the introduction of the Partial Least Squares Regression (PLSR) model. After preprocessing the original spectral data and eliminating abnormal samples through Monte Carlo cross-validation, the competitive adaptive re-weighted algorithm was employed to screen characteristic wavelengths. The models for moisture content and soluble solids retained 109 and 89 key variables, respectively (out of the original 601). The results indicate that after applying different optimal preprocessing methods to spectra from various detection distances and using CARS for variable selection, the model performance was significantly improved: the coefficient of determination and RPIQ of the optimal model for moisture content increased from 0.8630 to 3.9785 to 0.9245 and 5.3667, respectively, while the root mean square error of the prediction set decreased from 2.4354 to 2.0157; the evaluation metrics of the optimal model for soluble solids increased from the original values of 0.6845 and 1.8691 to 0.7793 and 2.8745, and the root mean square error of the prediction set decreased from the original value of 0.8734 to 0.6834. The optimal detection distance for moisture content is 0.3 m (with moving window smoothing preprocessing), while the optimal detection distance for soluble solids is 0.4 m (with multi-scattering correction preprocessing). Furthermore, the preliminarily explored segmented weighted multi-distance spectral fusion strategy can integrate complementary spectral features, further enhancing the robustness of the model. This study confirms that the detection distance significantly affects the accuracy of spectral detection of fruit internal quality, providing methodological references for multi-source information fusion modeling and the on-site application of spectral technology.
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.