ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Volatile Fingerprinting and Interpretable Machine Learning for Quality Differentiation of Astragali Radix from Different Cultivation Patterns.
Article 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Volatile fingerprints provide useful information for characterizing Astragali Radix (AR), a food-medicine homologous plant material, but differences among wild, wild-simulated, and cultivated samples remain unclear. In this study, headspace solid-phase microextraction coupled with gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (HS-SPME-GC-MS) and headspace gas chromatography-ion mobility spectrometry (HS-GC-IMS) were integrated with multivariate analysis and interpretable machine learning to characterize volatile profiles and identify candidate discriminatory compounds in 117 AR samples from different cultivation patterns. HS-SPME-GC-MS tentatively identified 29, 34, and 45 volatile compounds in wild, wild-simulated, and cultivated samples, respectively. Esters were the predominant class in all groups, although the relative abundance of esters and the overall chemical-class composition varied among cultivation patterns. HS-GC-IMS tentatively identified 57, 50, and 55 compounds, respectively, comprising mainly low-molecular-weight aldehydes, alcohols, and ketones and thereby providing complementary volatile fingerprint information. Partial least squares discriminant analysis (PLS-DA) showed that the volatile fingerprints captured cultivation-pattern-associated differences, with the HS-GC-IMS model showing clearer group separation. Random forest, support vector machine, and CatBoost models were further constructed using the HS-SPME-GC-MS profiling results. By integrating variable importance in projection (VIP) and SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) values, γ-hexalactone, methyl eugenol, methyl (9Z,11E)-octadeca-9,11-dienoate, eugenol, and ethyl linoleate were selected as candidate discriminatory compounds. Based on the HS-GC-IMS results, 1-octen-3-one, pentyl acetate, (Z)-2-penten-1-ol, 2-heptanone, and the monomeric signal of 2-ethyl-6-methylpyrazine were also identified as candidate discriminatory compounds. These compounds may be related to fatty acid-derived metabolism, aromatic secondary metabolism, and terpenoid-related processes. The integration of two complementary volatile-analysis platforms with VIP- and SHAP-based interpretation provided broader coverage of volatile features and improved the interpretability of candidate-compound screening. These findings provide an interpretable analytical workflow and candidate discriminatory compounds that may support future rapid screening, cultivation-pattern authentication, and volatile-profile-based differentiation of AR, pending independent external validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.