| Literature DB >> 31547154 |
Alexandra Lianou1, Arianna Mencattini2, Alexandro Catini3, Corrado Di Natale4, George-John E Nychas5, Eugenio Martinelli6, Efstathios Z Panagou7.
Abstract
The performance of an Unsupervised Online feature Selection (UOS) algorithm was investigated for the selection of training features of multispectral images acquired from a dairy product (vanilla cream) stored under isothermal conditions. The selected features were further used as input in a support vector machine (SVM) model with linear kernel for the determination of the microbiological quality of vanilla cream. Model training (n = 65) was based on two batches of cream samples provided directly by the manufacturer and stored at different isothermal conditions (4, 8, 12, and 15 °C), whereas model testing (n = 132) and validation (n = 48) were based on real life conditions by analyzing samples from different retail outlets as well as expired samples from the market. Qualitative analysis was performed for the discrimination of cream samples in two microbiological quality classes based on the values of total viable counts [TVC ≤ 2.0 log CFU/g (fresh samples) and TVC ≥ 6.0 log CFU/g (spoiled samples)]. Results exhibited good performance with an overall accuracy of classification for the two classes of 91.7% for model validation. Further on, the model was extended to include the samples in the TVC range 2-6 log CFU/g, using 1 log step to define the microbiological quality of classes in order to assess the potential of the model to estimate increasing microbial populations. Results demonstrated that high rates of correct classification could be obtained in the range of 2-5 log CFU/g, whereas the percentage of erroneous classification increased in the TVC class (5,6) that was close to the spoilage level of the product. Overall, the results of this study demonstrated that the UOS algorithm in tandem with spectral data acquired from multispectral imaging could be a promising method for real-time assessment of the microbiological quality of vanilla cream samples.Entities:
Keywords: adaptive classifier; multispectral image analysis; on-line feature selection; vanilla cream
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31547154 PMCID: PMC6806099 DOI: 10.3390/s19194071
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sensors (Basel) ISSN: 1424-8220 Impact factor: 3.576
Figure 1Reflectance spectra (mean ± standard deviation values) of selected vanilla cream samples corresponding to different storage conditions.
Dataset composition for multispectral imaging (MSI) data. Training and validation samples having TVC counts in the range (2, 6) log CFU/g have been excluded from the analysis. Test dataset is analyzed in total.
| Training Data | Validation Data | Test Data | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TVC ≤ 2 | TVC ≥ 6 | TVC ≤ 2 | TVC ≥ 6 | TVC ≤ 2 | TVC ∈ (2,6) | TVC ≥ 6 |
| 29/65 | 36/65 | 7/48 | 41/48 | 106/132 | 18/132 | 8/132 |
Figure 2A schematic representation of the Dynamic Feature Selection (DFS) process.
Figure 3A schematic representation of the procedure for DFS assessment over the MSI dataset.
Figure 4Confusion matrix of the classification results achieved in the fresh (first column) and spoiled (second column) vanilla cream samples.
Classification results for test samples in the whole range of TVC counts obtained during the microbiological analyses of vanilla cream samples.
| Positive Assignment | Negative Assignment | |
|---|---|---|
| TVC <2 | 4/103 (4%) | 99/103 (96%) |
| TVC ∈ [2,3) | 0/7 (0%) | 7/7 (100%) |
| TVC ∈ [3,4) | 0/2 (0%) | 2/2 (100%) |
| TVC ∈ [4,5) | 0/2 (0%) | 2/2 (100%) |
| TVC ∈ [5,6) | 6/10 (60%) | 4/10 (40%) |
| TVC ≥ 6 | 7/8 (87.5%) | 1/8 (12.5%) |
Classification results of the comparative analysis. Linear Discriminant analysis (LDA) and Quadratic Discriminant Analysis (QDA) are used instead of SVM with the DFS approach. SVM classifier is then used with standard SE feature selection approach. Accuracy values are listed together with a broad report of the sensitivity values for each subcategory of TVC (2,5) and (5,6).
| Comparative Analysis | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Method | Accuracy | Sensitivity Per Subcategory | |
| TVC < 6 vs. TVC ≥ 6 | TVC ∈ (2 ÷ 5) | TVC ∈ (5 ÷ 6) | |
| SVM + DFS | 91.7% | 0% to SPOILED | 60% to SPOILED |
| LDA + DFS | 84.9% | 57% to SPOILED | 70% to SPOILED |
| QDA + DFS | 85.7% | 14% to SPOILED | 80% to SPOILED |
| SVM + SE | 70.2% | 40% to SPOILED | 80% to SPOILED |
Figure 5Histogram of the feature selection rate of the 18 average reflectance spectra (upper) and the 18 standard deviations of reflectance spectra (lower) features for the two datasets. Blue bars refer to the training sample and red bars indicate the test samples. The training results are obtained using a leave-one-out cross validation procedure.