Evidence mapPaperPMID 40415974Full record

ArticleCurrent research in food science2025

Comparative study of indirect and direct feature extraction algorithms in classifying tea varieties using near-infrared spectroscopy.

Xuefan Zhou, Xiaohong Wu, Bin Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current research in food science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Xuefan ZhouSchool of Electrical and Information Engineering, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China.
Xiaohong WuSchool of Electrical and Information Engineering, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang, China.
Bin WuDepartment of Information Engineering, Chuzhou Polytechnic, Chuzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tea, a globally cherished beverage, has become an integral part of daily life, particularly in China. Given the extensive variety of teas, each distinguished by unique price points, flavors, and health benefits, effective classification within the tea industry is crucial to address the diverse preferences of consumers. This study utilized indirect and direct feature extraction algorithms to analyze the Near-Infrared (NIR) spectra of various tea varieties and compared their classification outcomes. Principal Component Analysis (PCA) was employed as a dimensionality reduction technique for indirect feature extraction algorithms. The study began with the collection of NIR spectra from different tea varieties, followed by the application of three spectral preprocessing algorithms. Indirect and direct feature extraction algorithms were then used to reduce the dimensionality of the preprocessed data. A K-Nearest Neighbors (KNN) classifier analyzed the dimensionality-reduced data to determine classification accuracy. The findings revealed that the classification accuracies of indirect feature extraction algorithms consistently exceeded those of direct feature extraction algorithms, with the former generally surpassing 90.0 %, while the latter remained lower. This indicates that indirect feature extraction algorithms are more adept at handling complex spectral data. A significant decline in classification accuracy was observed when data were processed with Savitzky-Golay (SG). An in-depth analysis led to the development of an optimization plan incorporating the Successive Projections Algorithm (SPA), which effectively enhanced all classification accuracies to above 90 %.

Indexed as

ClassificationFeature extractionNear-infrared spectroscopySpectral preprocessingTea

Identifiers

PMID40415974
PMCPMC12099700

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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 Socratic graph.