| Literature DB >> 35327268 |
Ruting Zhao1,2, Xiaoxia Liu1,2, Jishi Wang1,2, Yanyun Wang1,2, Ai-Liang Chen1,2, Yan Zhao1,2, Shuming Yang1,2.
Abstract
For the protection of Protected Geographical Indication (PGI) Sunite lamb, PGI Sunite lamb samples and lamb samples from two other banners in the Inner Mongolia autonomous region were distinguished by stable isotopes (δ13C, δ15N, δ2H, and δ18O) and two local modeling approaches. In terms of the main characteristics and predictive performance, local modeling was better than global modeling. The accuracies of five local models (LDA, RF, SVM, BPNN, and KNN) obtained by the Adaptive Kennard-Stone algorithm were 91.30%, 95.65%, 91.30%, 100%, and 91.30%, respectively. The accuracies of the five local models obtained by an approach of PCA-Full distance based on DD-SIMCA were 91.30%, 91.30%, 91.30%, 100%, and 95.65%, respectively. The accuracies of the five global models were 91.30%, 91.30%, 91.30%, 100%, and 91.30%, respectively. Stable isotope ratio analysis combined with local modeling can be used as an effective indicator for protecting PGI Sunite lamb.Entities:
Keywords: Sunite lamb; local modeling; machine learning; protected geographical indication; stable isotopes
Year: 2022 PMID: 35327268 PMCID: PMC8954832 DOI: 10.3390/foods11060846
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Foods ISSN: 2304-8158
Figure 1The steps of the AKS algorithm.
The schematic table of the confusion matrix.
| Confusion Matrix | Predicted Class | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Class 1 | Class 2 | ||
| Actual class | Class 1 | True positive (TP) | False negative (FN) |
| Class 2 | False positive (FP) | True negative (TN) | |
Figure 2Regional location information for the lamb samples.
(a) Descriptive statistics of the isotope attributes of samples in the lamb isotope libraries. (b) δ13C, δ15N, δ2H, and δ18O values of the local and global lamb isotopes libraries from two groups.
|
( | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Global lamb isotope library (Training set, | ||||
| δ13C | −19.87 | 2.10 | −24.69 | −17.16 |
| δ15N | 7.10 | 0.95 | 5.58 | 8.88 |
| δ2H | −103.90 | 11.14 | −131.87 | −93.77 |
| δ18O | 12.55 | 3.08 | 4.92 | 17.98 |
| Local lamb isotope library (Training subset by AKS, | ||||
| δ13C | −21.24 | 2.21 | −24.69 | −17.26 |
| δ15N | 7.16 | 1.01 | 5.58 | 8.88 |
| δ2H | −110.85 | 14.11 | −131.87 | −95.44 |
| δ18O | 11.15 | 3.90 | 4.92 | 16.56 |
|
( | ||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Global lamb isotope library (Training set, | ||||
| PGI Sunite lamb | −19.31 ± 1.52 a | 7.28 ± 0.94 a | −99.48 ± 5.44 a | 13.65 ± 1.90 a |
| non-PGI lamb | −21.92 ± 2.65 b | 6.45 ± 0.70 b | −120.02 ± 11.84 b | 8.53 ± 3.28 b |
| Local lamb isotope library (Training subset by AKS, | ||||
| PGI Sunite lamb | −20.57 ± 1.44 a | 7.88 ± 0.73 a | −101.68 ± 9.58 a | 13.78 ± 2.43 a |
| non-PGI lamb | −21.92 ± 2.65 b | 6.45 ± 0.70 b | −120.02 ± 11.84 b | 8.53 ± 3.28 b |
Note: The values are given as mean ± SD; the small letters represent significant differences (p < 0.05); the sample sizes of Sunite Right Banner, Sunite Left Banner, Siziwang Banner, and Abaga Banner in the global lamb isotope and local lamb isotope libraries were 68, 5, 15, and 5, and 15, 5, 15, and 5, respectively.
Figure 3Histograms of the δ13C (a), δ15N (b), δ2H (c), and δ18O (d) values of the global lamb isotope library and local lamb isotope library.
Figure 4Boxplots of the δ13C, δ15N, δ2H, and δ18O values of (a) global lamb isotope library and (b) local lamb isotope library according to lamb groups; 3D–score plot of (c) global lamb isotope library and (d) local lamb isotope library according to lamb groups.
Origin classification results of applying the 5 models to the testing set lambs according to (a) the global lamb isotopes libraries, (b) the local lamb isotopes libraries screened by AKS, and (c) the local lamb isotopes libraries screened by the approach of PCA–FD based on DD–SIMCA.
|
( |
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Confusion matrix (No. of testing set samples) | |||||
| True positive | 17 | 17 | 17 | 18 | 17 |
| (tpi) | |||||
| False negative | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| (fni) | |||||
| True negative | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| (tni) | |||||
| False positive | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| (fpi) | |||||
| Performance evaluation | |||||
| Sensitivity | 0.9444 | 0.9444 | 0.9444 | 1.0000 | 0.9444 |
| Specificity | 0.8000 | 0.8000 | 0.8000 | 1.0000 | 0.8000 |
| Kappa | 0.7444 | 0.7444 | 0.7444 | 1.0000 | 0.7444 |
| Accuracy | 0.9130 | 0.9130 | 0.9130 | 1.0000 | 0.9130 |
|
( |
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Confusion matrix (No. of testing set samples) | |||||
| True positive | 17 | 17 | 17 | 18 | 17 |
| (tpi) | |||||
| False negative | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| (fni) | |||||
| True negative | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 | 4 |
| (tni) | |||||
| False positive | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| (fpi) | |||||
| Performance evaluation | |||||
| Sensitivity | 0.9444 | 0.9444 | 0.9444 | 1.0000 | 0.9444 |
| Specificity | 0.8000 | 1.0000 | 0.8000 | 1.0000 | 0.8000 |
| Kappa | 0.7444 | 0.8808 | 0.7444 | 1.0000 | 0.7444 |
| Accuracy | 0.9130 | 0.9565 | 0.9130 | 1.0000 | 0.9130 |
|
( |
| ||||
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Confusion matrix (No. of testing set samples) | |||||
| True positive | 17 | 17 | 17 | 18 | 17 |
| (tpi) | |||||
| False negative | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| (fni) | |||||
| True negative | 4 | 4 | 4 | 5 | 5 |
| (tni) | |||||
| False positive | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| (fpi) | |||||
| Performance evaluation | |||||
| Sensitivity | 0.9444 | 0.9444 | 0.9444 | 1.0000 | 0.9444 |
| Specificity | 0.8000 | 0.8000 | 0.8000 | 1.0000 | 1.0000 |
| Kappa | 0.7444 | 0.7444 | 0.7444 | 1.0000 | 0.8808 |
| Accuracy | 0.9130 | 0.9130 | 0.9130 | 1.0000 | 0.9565 |