ArticleJournal of food science2026
Detection of Honey Adulteration Using Thermorheological and Spectroscopic Analyses: Independent Evaluation With Linear Latent-Variable and Gradient Boosting Models.
Article in Journal of food science, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Honey adulteration is a prevalent economic fraud that demands robust and reliable detection methods. In this study, a proof-of-concept was developed on a comparative study of oscillatory thermorheology (20°C-80°C) and spectroscopic techniques, including UV-Vis and fluorescence spectroscopy, for the detection of adulteration with glucose, invert sugar, and maltose syrups. A total of 86 samples were analyzed, comprising authentic blossom and honeydew honeys, as well as samples adulterated at concentrations ranging from 5% to 50%. Thermorheological and spectroscopic datasets were analyzed independently to assess their individual discriminative power. For each analytical approach, classification performance was evaluated using linear latent-variable models (PLS-DA, OPLS-DA) and gradient-boosting machine learning techniques (LightGBM, XGBoost), enabling a systematic comparison between classical chemometric and nonlinear machine-learning methods. The results revealed clear performance differences between the analytical approaches and modeling strategies. The results demonstrated that while spectroscopic models achieved high sensitivity (>0.96), they frequently failed to correctly identify authentic samples, resulting in notably low specificity (0.17-0.42). In contrast, thermorheological parameters more effectively captured the structural and physicochemical alterations induced by the addition of glucose, invert sugar, and maltose syrups. Notably, loss modulus data modeled using the LightGBM algorithm achieved the most balanced classification performance, reaching 0.75 specificity and 92.67% external validation accuracy while maintaining high sensitivity. These findings demonstrate that thermorheological analysis, particularly when evaluated using advanced non-linear gradient boosting models, offers superior discriminative capability for honey authentication compared to spectroscopic analysis alone.
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.