ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2026
AI-Driven Food Fraud Detection Systems: A Critical Systematic Review of the Detection-Prevention Gap.
Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The economic impact of food fraud is difficult to quantify precisely, because fraud is structurally designed to evade detection; available estimates are indirect projections rather than direct forensic accounting and are commonly cited in the range of USD 10-15 billion annually. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) with analytical instrumentation has generated a rapidly expanding body of research aimed at detecting adulteration, mislabeling, and substitution across food matrices. This systematic review examines the extent to which AI-assisted instrumental technologies contribute to food fraud prevention (as distinct from laboratory detection) and characterizes the structural factors that constrain real-world translation. A systematic search of the peer-reviewed literature published between 2021 and 2026 yielded 83 eligible records (80 primary studies and 3 review articles) after applying predefined inclusion criteria. Data were extracted into a structured seven-sheet workbook covering study characteristics, instrumental technologies, AI architectures, performance metrics, industrial-validation status, implementation evidence, and methodological quality. The corpus shows consistently high reported analytical accuracy under controlled laboratory conditions (median of extractable classification accuracies ≈ 99-100%; ≥95% in 86% of studies with an extractable value). At the same time, 68 of 83 studies (82%) reported no external validation, no study (0/83) achieved inter-laboratory validation, no study documented routine-monitoring application, and only one study reported testing in a genuine industrial environment. The most frequently featured platforms were NIR spectroscopy and electronic-nose arrays (each featuring in 30/83 studies, frequently in data-fusion combinations), followed by gas-chromatography-based systems (16/83) and hyperspectral imaging (13/83). Classical machine learning predominated (57/83 studies coded as classical ML, with a further 11 hybrid ML/DL designs and 12 deep-learning-only designs). A direct statistical comparison found no significant difference in reported accuracy between classical-ML and deep-learning studies (median 100% vs. 98.2%; Mann-Whitney U test,
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.