Method and system for evaluating results of food sample review and inspection projects

Abstract

The present disclosure provides a method and system for evaluating the results of a food sample re-inspection project, belonging to the field of detection technology. The method comprises: if the detection method of the re-inspection project has repeatability limits, reproducibility limits, or precision, calculating the capability assessment standard deviation based on a precision test; if the detection method of the re-inspection project does not have repeatability limits, reproducibility limits, or precision, calculating the capability assessment standard deviation based on a Horvitz model; calculating the deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result of the re-inspection project based on the capability assessment standard deviation, the initial inspection result, and the re-inspection result; and determining the re-inspection evaluation result of the re-inspection project based on the deviation. The method and system for evaluating the results of a food sample re-inspection project provided by the present disclosure can improve the credibility of the re-inspection evaluation results, thereby ensuring the quality of daily detection data of food testing laboratories.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] The present disclosure belongs to the field of detection technology, and more specifically, relates to a method and system for evaluating the results of a food sample review and inspection project. Background Art

[0002] Food manufacturers are required to adhere to certain quality standards, including national and industry standards. Testing agencies ensure food meets these standards by examining its sensory properties (color, odor, taste, etc.), physical and chemical parameters (such as moisture content, acidity, peroxide value, etc.), and hygiene indicators (such as microbiological indicators and the use of additives).

[0003] Testing agencies are divided into initial testing agencies and re-testing agencies according to the order in which they conduct sample testing. Their testing conclusions directly affect the management department's subsequent handling of production enterprises and their products. Therefore, conducting re-testing on the samples with qualified initial testing conclusions is an effective supervision of the testing results of the initial testing agencies and also a quality assurance of qualified food. The assessment management agency draws on the samples prepared by the initial testing agencies, which are re-tested by the re-testing agency and evaluated by the assessment management agency on the re-testing results.

[0004] In order to ensure the credibility of the review and evaluation results, it is necessary to propose a practical evaluation method for the review and inspection results of food samples. Summary of the Invention

[0005] The purpose of the present invention is to provide a method and system for evaluating the results of food sample review and inspection items, so as to improve the credibility of the review and evaluation results and thus ensure the quality of food.

[0006] A first aspect of the present disclosure provides a method for evaluating the results of a food sample review and inspection project, comprising:

[0007] If the test method for the recheck test item has repeatability limits, reproducibility limits or precision, the capability assessment standard deviation shall be calculated based on the precision test;

[0008] If the test method for the recheck test item does not have repeatability limits, reproducibility limits or precision, the capability assessment standard deviation shall be calculated based on the Horvitz model;

[0009] Calculating the degree of deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result of the re-inspection item based on the capability assessment standard deviation, the initial inspection result, and the re-inspection result;

[0010] A review evaluation result of the review inspection item is determined based on the deviation.

[0011] A second aspect of the present disclosure provides a food sample review and inspection result evaluation system, comprising:

[0012] The capability assessment standard deviation calculation module is used to calculate the capability assessment standard deviation based on the precision test if the detection method of the review inspection item has repeatability limits, reproducibility limits or precision; if the detection method of the review inspection item does not have repeatability limits, reproducibility limits or precision, the capability assessment standard deviation is calculated based on the Horvitz model;

[0013] a deviation calculation module, configured to calculate the deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result of the re-inspection item based on the capability assessment standard deviation, the initial inspection result, and the re-inspection result;

[0014] The review result output module is used to determine the review evaluation result of the review inspection item based on the deviation.

[0015] According to a third aspect of an embodiment of the present disclosure, an electronic device is provided, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and running on the processor, wherein when the processor executes the computer program, the steps of the above-mentioned method for evaluating the results of food sample review and inspection items are implemented.

[0016] According to a fourth aspect of the embodiments of the present disclosure, a computer-readable storage medium is provided, wherein the computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program, and when the computer program is executed by a processor, the steps of the above-mentioned method for evaluating the results of food sample review and inspection items are implemented.

[0017] The beneficial effects of the method and system for evaluating the results of food sample review and inspection items provided by the embodiments of the present disclosure are:

[0018] In the embodiments of the present disclosure, when the detection method has repeatability limits, reproducibility limits or precision, the precision can characterize the degree of closeness of multiple measurement results under the same conditions, and it is more direct and accurate to calculate the capability assessment standard deviation based on the precision test; for detection methods that do not have repeatability limits, reproducibility limits or precision, the capability assessment standard deviation can be calculated based on the Horvitz model. The Horvitz model is an empirical model summarized based on a large amount of experimental data. It takes into account the variation law of measurement results at different concentration levels and can make a reasonable estimate of the capability assessment standard deviation in the absence of specific precision data.

[0019] On this basis, the review and evaluation results are quantified based on the capability assessment standard deviation, the initial inspection results and the re-inspection results, so as to make the review and evaluation results more objective, improve the credibility of the review and evaluation results, help food companies improve product quality, and play a vital role in promoting the healthy development of the entire food industry. BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

[0020] In order to more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments of the present disclosure, the following briefly introduces the drawings required for use in the embodiments or the description of the prior art. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of the present disclosure. For ordinary technicians in this field, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without any creative work.

[0021] Figure 1 A schematic diagram of a process for evaluating the results of a food sample review and inspection project provided in one embodiment of the present disclosure;

[0022] Figure 2 This is a structural block diagram of a food sample review and inspection result evaluation system provided by an embodiment of the present disclosure;

[0023] Figure 3 A schematic block diagram of an electronic device provided in one embodiment of the present disclosure. DETAILED DESCRIPTION

[0024] In the following description, specific details such as specific system structures and techniques are provided for purposes of illustration rather than limitation to facilitate a thorough understanding of the embodiments of the present disclosure. However, it will be apparent to those skilled in the art that the present disclosure may be implemented in other embodiments without these specific details. In other cases, detailed descriptions of well-known systems, devices, circuits, and methods are omitted to avoid obscuring the description of the present disclosure with unnecessary detail.

[0025] In order to make the purpose, technical solutions and advantages of the present disclosure more clear, specific embodiments will be described below with reference to the accompanying drawings.

[0026] Please refer to Figure 1 , Figure 1 A flowchart of a method for evaluating the results of a food sample review and inspection project provided in one embodiment of the present disclosure, the method comprising:

[0027] S101: If the test method for the recheck test item has repeatability limits, reproducibility limits or precision, the capability assessment standard deviation shall be calculated based on the precision test.

[0028] If the detection method for the review inspection item does not have repeatability limits, reproducibility limits or precision, the capability assessment standard deviation shall be calculated based on the Horvitz model.

[0029] In this embodiment, the capability assessment standard deviation is a measure of dispersion used for capability assessment based on available information. In inter-laboratory comparison or proficiency testing activities, the capability assessment standard deviation can be used to measure the degree of dispersion of laboratory test or measurement results.

[0030] The review inspection items are the inspection items carried out for retained sample review inspection. In order to ensure that the results of the retained sample review inspection are scientific and effective, a complete implementation plan needs to be formulated. The content generally includes the following aspects:

[0031] (1) Review the screening of major food categories;

[0032] (2) Screening of review items;

[0033] (3) Determination of review methods;

[0034] (4) Selection of re-inspection institutions, establishment of a qualification assessment system for re-inspection institutions, including quantitative assessment methods and screening criteria for the accuracy of their instruments and equipment, technical level of personnel (which can be specific to relevant qualification certificates or experience requirements), laboratory environment control capabilities (such as monitoring and regulation of parameters such as temperature, humidity, and cleanliness), etc., to ensure the high reliability of the re-inspection institutions.

[0035] Regarding the first aspect of the above implementation plan, the screening principles for review samples (i.e., review of major food categories) include:

[0036] (I) Screening based on sample shelf life and transportation conditions

[0037] Considering that the complete review process takes at least one month, the shelf life of at least one month must be considered when selecting samples for random inspection. Due to their generally short shelf life, catering foods have historically been unsuitable for routine sample review and inspection, except for special rectification efforts. To avoid oversight of this broad food category, a model combining on-site inspections with random sampling is being implemented to complete review and inspection of samples within their validity period.

[0038] During sample retention and re-inspection, the initial inspection agency must ship the samples to the assessment office via logistics, which then sends them to the re-inspection agency. This process may not guarantee the use of a cold chain, so it is necessary to select food categories that are less susceptible to impact during storage and transportation. By incorporating technologies that can monitor temperature changes during transportation, such as disposable temperature recording tags (which are low-cost, easy to use, and record whether the temperature exceeds the limit during transportation through an irreversible chemical reaction), this logistics temperature monitoring and control method effectively addresses the previous inability to conduct sample retention and re-inspection of major food categories such as frozen drinks, quick-frozen foods, and edible agricultural products, and clarifies the causes of measurement deviations.

[0039] (II) Screening for sample uniformity

[0040] Natural food samples can vary significantly in uniformity due to differences in production and processing techniques, as well as in the environments in which they are raised. This can easily affect the evaluation of test results. Therefore, in the past, sample retention and re-inspection work could only select relatively uniform samples or samples that, after simple processing, met the uniformity requirements for retention and re-inspection.

[0041] By studying sample homogenization techniques, such as using cutting and stirring equipment for food sample preparation and carefully examining the cutting equipment's materials, we can avoid sample unevenness introduced by external factors during the process. Furthermore, by incorporating statistical methods, we incorporate the impact of sample uniformity into the evaluation system, rather than using the same calculation method for all major food categories. Through these methods, we have achieved sample retention and re-inspection of samples with poor uniformity, such as meat products, edible agricultural products, vegetable products, and fruit products.

[0042] Regarding the second aspect of the above implementation plan, the screening principles for review items include:

[0043] As the primary target of review, the selection criteria for retained sample review directly impact whether the evaluation results reflect the true issues encountered during routine testing. In addition to the difficulty and risk level of the test items, stability and uniformity are also key factors of concern for this project.

[0044] (I) Screening based on the requirements of the work rules

[0045] Retention sample re-inspection only reviews physical and chemical items, while microbiological items cannot be re-inspected due to their special nature. This has resulted in a lack of supervision of microbiological testing capabilities. By conducting retention sample re-inspection on physical and chemical items tested using microbiological methods, combined with evaluation systems such as routine blind sample assessments, supervision of microbiological testing capabilities can be achieved.

[0046] (II) Screening for stability

[0047] The stability of the test items during storage and transportation is a key factor influencing the accuracy of the review and evaluation results. Some test items prone to degradation, volatilization, oxidation, and other changes often experience changes in their values ​​due to storage conditions, shelf life, and sample pre-packaging. For example, some items such as pesticide residues and alcohol content are not suitable for retained sample review.

[0048] (III) Screening for uniformity

[0049] Due to the limited sampling volume of food random inspections, sample uniformity significantly impacts the review results. Mycotoxin testing is a unique category of physical and chemical testing. Not only is contamination prone to accumulation during sample storage, but the presence of contaminated samples during initial and re-sampling directly impacts test results. Therefore, when selecting this type of testing for review, the sample collection and pre-treatment processes increase the uncertainty of the test results, making retained sample re-inspection generally unsuitable.

[0050] In this embodiment, the appropriate ability assessment standard deviation can be selected according to the actual situation of the test item. The calculation method is mainly divided into the following two cases:

[0051] (1) Using precision tests to calculate the standard deviation of capability assessment

[0052] Refer to the description in 4.1.2 of GB 6379.6. When an estimator is the sum or difference of n queue estimators, the standard deviation of each estimator is , then the standard deviation of the sum or difference is Since the comparison data of the retained sample review are only the initial test results and the retest results, the reproducibility R and repeatability are the differences between two test results, and their corresponding standard deviations are In routine inspection work, in order to check the difference between two test results, this standard deviation is usually used. times as the critical difference. For normal distribution, at the 95% probability level, ,therefore , revised to 2.8, that is .

[0053] The precision specified in the test method is approximately calculated as the repeatability limit, so the repeatability standard deviation ( ) = precision / 2.8. Since the initial inspection and re-inspection agencies in the retained sample review inspection are two completely independent testing laboratories, the inter-laboratory reproducibility standard deviation is considered as follows Calculation. Among them, Indicates the standard value, and takes the smaller set of data between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result to achieve the accuracy of the evaluation result.

[0054] Although the samples used for recheck are from the same batch as the initial inspection samples, the uniformity of samples within the same batch during the food production process may still vary. With reference to the food matrix case in the “Measurement Uncertainty Due to Sampling: Guidance on Methods and Procedures”, Multiply by a certain multiple (for example, 3 times) to obtain the standard deviation of ability assessment.

[0055] (2) Calculating the standard deviation of capability assessment using the general model

[0056] When the test method does not have specific repeatability limits, reproducibility limits or precision, the capability assessment standard deviation can only be evaluated using the general model of measurement method reproducibility. The Horwitz model provides a general model for the reproducibility of chemical analysis methods. The expression of the reproducibility standard deviation is as follows:

[0057]

[0058] The Horvitz model was used to evaluate the review results. Since the model was established based on the observation results of multi-parameter collaborative experiments and is the expected upper limit of the volatility between multiple laboratories, it is not necessary to repeatedly expand it by 2 times when calculating the standard deviation of inter-laboratory reproducibility. Only the difference between the review samples and the initial inspection samples needs to be considered. On this basis, Multiply by a certain multiple (for example, 3 times) to obtain the standard deviation of ability assessment.

[0059] The advantages of using the Horvitz model to evaluate the review results are: 1) there is no need to provide descriptions such as the precision of the detection method; 2) the reproducibility standard deviation is related to the actual concentration level of the sample and is more targeted.

[0060] S102: Calculate the degree of deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result of the review inspection item based on the capability assessment standard deviation, the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result.

[0061] In this embodiment, the deviation is calculated by combining the initial and retest results with the proficiency assessment standard deviation, which quantitatively describes the degree of difference between the two test results. This calculation takes into account the discrete nature of the test method itself, making the deviation assessment more scientific and reasonable, and accurately reflecting the consistency or difference between the initial and retest results.

[0062] Deviation is calculated through mathematical formulas, converting qualitative comparisons into quantitative data to ensure the accuracy and reliability of sampling inspection results. By comprehensively understanding the current status of food safety inspection agencies and inspection results, effective support is provided for management decisions.

[0063] S103: Determine the review evaluation results of the review inspection items based on the degree of deviation.

[0064] In this embodiment, the deviation can be compared with a set threshold. If the deviation is greater than or equal to the set threshold, the review evaluation result can be determined to be failed. If the deviation is less than the set threshold, the review evaluation result can be determined to be passed. By providing clear and practical review evaluation results, effective support is provided for the decision-making of management departments.

[0065] From the above, it can be concluded that when the detection method has repeatability limits, reproducibility limits or precision, precision can characterize the degree of closeness of multiple measurement results under the same conditions, and it is more direct and accurate to calculate the capability assessment standard deviation based on the precision test; for detection methods that do not have repeatability limits, reproducibility limits or precision, the capability assessment standard deviation can be calculated based on the Horvitz model. The Horvitz model is an empirical model summarized based on a large amount of experimental data. It takes into account the variation law of measurement results at different concentration levels and can make a reasonable estimate of the capability assessment standard deviation in the absence of specific precision data.

[0066] On this basis, the review and evaluation results are quantified based on the standard deviation of capability assessment, initial inspection results and re-inspection results, making the review and evaluation results more objective, improving the credibility of the review and evaluation results, helping food companies improve product quality, and playing a vital role in promoting the healthy development of the entire food industry.

[0067] In one embodiment of the present disclosure, calculating the deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result of the re-inspection item based on the capability assessment standard deviation, the initial inspection result, and the re-inspection result includes:

[0068] The deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result of the re-inspection item is calculated by the first formula; the first formula is:

[0069]

[0070] in, Indicates the degree of deviation, Indicates the initial inspection results of the review inspection items. Indicates the re-inspection results of the re-inspection items. Indicates the standard deviation of ability assessment.

[0071] In this example, we consider that different laboratories may differ due to factors such as the instruments, testing methods, and operators used, resulting in a lack of direct comparability between test results. To address this issue, this example uses z-scores to evaluate test results. Z-scores eliminate the influence of these factors by converting each laboratory's test results into standard scores relative to consensus values ​​and allowable dispersion, allowing test results from different laboratories to be compared and evaluated under the same standards. This allows for greater comparability of test results, both between laboratories within the same institution and between laboratories in different institutions, facilitating comprehensive analysis and utilization of test data.

[0072] In one embodiment of the present disclosure, calculating the capability assessment standard deviation based on the reproducibility standard deviation includes:

[0073] If the sample type corresponding to the recheck inspection item is industrial processed food and is a liquid sample, the formula or Standard deviation of numeracy assessment ;

[0074] If the sample type corresponding to the recheck test item is industrial processed food and is solid powder, the formula or Standard deviation of numeracy assessment ;

[0075] If the sample type corresponding to the recheck test item is industrial processed food and the matrix is ​​solid particles or blocks, the formula or Standard deviation of numeracy assessment ;

[0076] If the sample type corresponding to the review inspection item is edible agricultural products, the formula Standard deviation of numeracy assessment .

[0077] In this embodiment, considering the difference in uniformity caused by the sample type, if the sample type is industrial processed food and is a liquid sample, such as alcoholic beverages, etc., the standard deviation of its ability assessment can reduce the impact introduced by uniformity. The calculation formula is: or If the sample type is industrial processed food but the matrix is ​​solid powder, such as infant formula, the process of such samples is relatively stable, so the standard deviation of its capability assessment can reduce the influence introduced by uniformity. The calculation formula is: or If the sample type is industrial processed food but the matrix is ​​solid particles or blocks, the influence of uniformity on the ability assessment standard deviation of such samples may be greater. It can be discussed and classified according to the actual situation. The calculation formula is: or If the sample type is edible agricultural products, the standard deviation of the capability assessment of this type of sample is greatly affected by the uniformity, and the calculation formula is: .

[0078] In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the re-inspection items are performed by two re-inspection institutions, and the two re-inspection institutions obtain a first re-inspection result and a second re-inspection result respectively.

[0079] The evaluation methods for the results of food sample review and inspection items also include:

[0080] The first re-inspection result and the second re-inspection result are respectively determined as re-inspection results, a first deviation and a second deviation are calculated, and a deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result is determined based on the first deviation and the second deviation.

[0081] In this embodiment, if there are two re-inspection agencies, it is necessary to calculate the first deviation based on the initial inspection result and the first re-inspection result, and calculate the second deviation based on the initial inspection result and the second re-inspection result, and then combine the first deviation and the second deviation to obtain the final deviation. The first deviation and the second deviation can be calculated by the first formula respectively, which will not be described here. Among them, when calculating the first deviation, the smaller set of data between the initial inspection result and the first re-inspection result is taken as the standard value c1, and the reproducibility standard deviation is calculated based on the standard value c1 , and then calculate the first deviation; when calculating the second deviation, take the smaller set of data from the initial inspection result and the second re-inspection result as the standard value c2, and calculate the reproducibility standard deviation based on the standard value c2 , and then calculate the second deviation.

[0082] In one embodiment of the present disclosure, determining the deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result based on the first deviation and the second deviation includes:

[0083] If the first deviation and the second deviation are both less than or the first deviation and the second deviation are both greater than or equal to the first threshold, an average of the first deviation and the second deviation is determined as the deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result;

[0084] If one of the first deviation and the second deviation is greater than or equal to the first threshold, a third re-inspection agency is added, and the deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result is determined based on the third re-inspection result of the third re-inspection agency.

[0085] In this embodiment, if the first deviation and the second deviation are both less than or the first deviation and the second deviation are both greater than or equal to the first threshold, the final deviation can be determined by further processing the first deviation and the second deviation (such as calculating the average value, etc.). This can comprehensively consider the detection information of the two institutions, making the review and evaluation results more representative and accurate.

[0086] If one of the first deviation and the second deviation is greater than or equal to the first threshold, and the other deviation is less than the first threshold, a third re-inspection agency is added for arbitration. For example, a third deviation is calculated based on the third re-inspection result of the third re-inspection agency, and the third deviation is determined as the final deviation.

[0087] In one embodiment of the present disclosure, determining a review evaluation result of a review inspection item based on the degree of deviation includes:

[0088] If the deviation is less than the first threshold, the review evaluation result of the review inspection item is determined to have passed the review inspection;

[0089] If the degree of deviation is greater than or equal to the first threshold, the review evaluation result of the review inspection item is determined to have failed the review inspection.

[0090] In this embodiment, the degree of deviation can be expressed as a z-ratio score. When |z|<3.0, the initial inspection and the recheck results are considered to be consistent; when |z|≥3, the initial inspection and the recheck results are considered to be inconsistent.

[0091] The specific judgment results are as follows:

[0092] (1) If there is only one re-inspection agency and the deviation between the results of the initial inspection agency and the results of the re-inspection agency is within the limit, the conclusion of the retained sample re-inspection is passed.

[0093] (2) If the deviations between the results of the initial inspection agency and the results of multiple re-inspection agencies exceed the limit, the re-inspection results are judged to be inconsistent.

[0094] (3) If the deviation between the results of the initial inspection agency and the results of one of the re-inspection agencies is within the limit, and the deviation between the results of the initial inspection agency and the results of the other re-inspection agency exceeds the limit, a third re-inspection agency shall be added for arbitration.

[0095] (4) When the initial inspection agency conducts additional testing on samples of the same items and the same major food category, if the re-examination results of all samples are consistent, the conclusion of the retained sample re-examination is passed; if the re-examination results of any batch of samples are inconsistent, the conclusion of the retained sample re-examination is failed.

[0096] Through additional testing, it is determined whether there are obvious systematic errors or random errors in the initial inspection agency's inspection process of the project, providing a reference basis for the assessment management agency to clarify what appropriate post-processing measures should be taken for the agency.

[0097] Corresponding to the method for evaluating the results of food sample review and inspection items in the above embodiment, Figure 2 This is a structural block diagram of a food sample review and inspection result evaluation system provided by an embodiment of the present disclosure. For ease of explanation, only the parts related to the embodiment of the present disclosure are shown. Figure 2 The food sample review and inspection project result evaluation system 20 includes: a capability assessment standard deviation calculation module 21, a deviation calculation module 22 and a review result output module 23.

[0098] The capability assessment standard deviation calculation module 21 is configured to calculate the capability assessment standard deviation based on the precision test if the detection method for the review inspection item has repeatability limits, reproducibility limits, or precision; and to calculate the capability assessment standard deviation based on the Horvitz model if the detection method for the review inspection item does not have repeatability limits, reproducibility limits, or precision.

[0099] Deviation calculation module 22, used to calculate the deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result of the re-inspection item based on the capability assessment standard deviation, the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result;

[0100] The review result output module 23 is used to determine the review evaluation result of the review inspection item based on the deviation.

[0101] In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the deviation calculation module 22 is specifically configured to:

[0102] The deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result of the re-inspection item is calculated by the first formula; the first formula is:

[0103]

[0104] in, Indicates the degree of deviation, Indicates the initial inspection results of the review inspection items. Indicates the re-inspection results of the re-inspection items. Indicates the standard deviation of ability assessment.

[0105] In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the deviation calculation module 22 is further configured to:

[0106] If the test method for the recheck test item has repeatability limit, reproducibility limit or precision, the standard deviation of the capability assessment is calculated based on the precision test. ;

[0107] If the test method for the recheck test item does not have repeatability limits, reproducibility limits or precision, the standard deviation of the capability assessment is calculated based on the Horvitz model. .

[0108] In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the deviation calculation module 22 is further configured to:

[0109] Calculate the repeatability standard deviation based on precision;

[0110] Calculate the reproducibility standard deviation based on the repeatability standard deviation;

[0111] Calculate capability assessment standard deviation based on reproducibility standard deviation .

[0112] In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the deviation calculation module 22 is further configured to:

[0113] The reproducibility standard deviation was calculated based on the Horwitz model;

[0114] Calculate capability assessment standard deviation based on reproducibility standard deviation .

[0115] In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the deviation calculation module 22 is further configured to:

[0116] If the sample type corresponding to the recheck inspection item is industrial processed food and is a liquid sample, the formula or Standard deviation of numeracy assessment ;

[0117] If the sample type corresponding to the recheck test item is industrial processed food and is solid powder, the formula or Standard deviation of numeracy assessment ;

[0118] If the sample type corresponding to the recheck test item is industrial processed food and the matrix is ​​solid particles or blocks, the formula or Standard deviation of numeracy assessment ;

[0119] If the sample type corresponding to the review inspection item is edible agricultural products, the formula Standard deviation of numeracy assessment .

[0120] In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the recheck inspection items are performed by two recheck institutions, and the two recheck institutions respectively obtain a first recheck result and a second recheck result. The deviation calculation module 22 is specifically used to:

[0121] The evaluation methods for the results of food sample review and inspection items also include:

[0122] The first re-inspection result and the second re-inspection result are respectively determined as re-inspection results, a first deviation and a second deviation are calculated, and a deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result is determined based on the first deviation and the second deviation.

[0123] In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the deviation calculation module 22 is further configured to:

[0124] If the first deviation and the second deviation are both less than or the first deviation and the second deviation are both greater than or equal to the first threshold, an average of the first deviation and the second deviation is determined as the deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result;

[0125] If one of the first deviation and the second deviation is greater than or equal to the first threshold, a third re-inspection agency is added, and the deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result is determined based on the third re-inspection result of the third re-inspection agency.

[0126] In one embodiment of the present disclosure, the review result output module 23 is specifically configured to:

[0127] If the deviation is less than the first threshold, the review evaluation result of the review inspection item is determined to have passed the review inspection;

[0128] If the degree of deviation is greater than or equal to the first threshold, the review evaluation result of the review inspection item is determined to have failed the review inspection.

[0129] See also Figure 3 , Figure 3 This is a schematic block diagram of an electronic device provided by an embodiment of the present disclosure. Figure 3 The electronic device 300 in the embodiment shown may include: one or more processors 301, one or more input devices 302, one or more output devices 303, and one or more memories 304. The processors 301, input devices 302, output devices 303, and memories 304 communicate with each other via a communication bus 305. The memory 304 is used to store computer programs, which include program instructions. The processor 301 is used to execute the program instructions stored in the memory 304. The processor 301 is configured to call the program instructions to execute the functions of the modules / units in the above-mentioned device embodiments, such as Figure 2 The functions of modules 21 to 23 are shown.

[0130] It should be understood that in the embodiments of the present disclosure, the processor 301 may be a central processing unit (CPU), or may be other general-purpose processors, digital signal processors (DSP), application-specific integrated circuits (ASIC), field-programmable gate arrays (FPGA), or other programmable logic devices, discrete gate or transistor logic devices, discrete hardware components, etc. A general-purpose processor may be a microprocessor or any conventional processor, etc.

[0131] The input device 302 may include a touchpad, a fingerprint collection sensor (for collecting user fingerprint information and fingerprint direction information), a microphone, etc. The output device 303 may include a display (LCD, etc.), a speaker, etc.

[0132] The memory 304 may include a read-only memory and a random access memory, and provides instructions and data to the processor 301. A portion of the memory 304 may also include a non-volatile random access memory. For example, the memory 304 may also store device type information.

[0133] In a specific implementation, the processor 301, input device 302, and output device 303 described in the embodiments of the present disclosure can execute the implementation methods described in the first and second embodiments of the method for evaluating the results of food sample review and inspection items provided in the embodiments of the present disclosure, and can also execute the implementation methods of the electronic device described in the embodiments of the present disclosure, which will not be repeated here.

[0134] In another embodiment of the present disclosure, a computer-readable storage medium is provided. The computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program. The computer program includes program instructions. When the program instructions are executed by a processor, all or part of the process of the method in the above embodiment is implemented. The computer program can also be used to instruct related hardware to complete the process. The computer program can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. When the computer program is executed by the processor, the steps of each of the above method embodiments are implemented. The computer program includes computer program code, which can be in source code form, object code form, executable file or some intermediate form. The computer-readable medium can include: any entity or device capable of carrying computer program code, recording medium, USB flash drive, mobile hard disk, magnetic disk, optical disk, computer memory, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), electrical carrier signal, telecommunication signal and software distribution medium.

[0135] The computer-readable storage medium can be an internal storage unit of the electronic device in any of the aforementioned embodiments, such as a hard disk or memory of the electronic device. The computer-readable storage medium can also be an external storage device of the electronic device, such as a plug-in hard disk, a Smart Media Card (SMC), a Secure Digital (SD) card, a flash memory card, etc. Furthermore, the computer-readable storage medium can include both an internal storage unit of the electronic device and an external storage device. The computer-readable storage medium is used to store computer programs and other programs and data required by the electronic device. The computer-readable storage medium can also be used to temporarily store data that has been output or is about to be output.

[0136] Those skilled in the art will appreciate that the units and algorithm steps of each example described in conjunction with the embodiments disclosed herein can be implemented in electronic hardware, computer software, or a combination of the two. In order to clearly illustrate the interchangeability of hardware and software, the above description has generally described the composition and steps of each example according to function. Whether these functions are performed in hardware or software depends on the specific application and design constraints of the technical solution. Professional and technical personnel can use different methods to implement the described functions for each specific application, but such implementation should not be considered to be beyond the scope of this disclosure.

[0137] Those skilled in the art will clearly understand that, for the convenience and brevity of description, the specific working processes of the electronic devices and units described above can refer to the corresponding processes in the aforementioned method embodiments and will not be repeated here.

[0138] In the several embodiments provided in this application, it should be understood that the disclosed electronic devices and methods can be implemented in other ways. For example, the device embodiments described above are merely schematic. For example, the division of units is only a logical function division. In actual implementation, there may be other division methods, such as multiple units or components can be combined or integrated into another system, or some features can be ignored or not executed. In addition, the mutual coupling or direct coupling or communication connection shown or discussed can be an indirect coupling or communication connection through some interfaces or units, or can be an electrical, mechanical or other form of connection.

[0139] Units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate, and components shown as units may or may not be physical units, i.e., they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple network units. Some or all of these units may be selected based on actual needs to achieve the objectives of the embodiments of the present disclosure.

[0140] In addition, the functional units in the various embodiments of the present disclosure may be integrated into a single processing unit, or each unit may exist physically separately, or two or more units may be integrated into a single unit. The aforementioned integrated units may be implemented in the form of hardware or software functional units.

[0141] The above are only specific embodiments of the present disclosure, but the scope of protection of the present disclosure is not limited thereto. Any person skilled in the art can easily conceive of various equivalent modifications or replacements within the technical scope disclosed in this disclosure, and such modifications or replacements should be included in the scope of protection of the present disclosure. Therefore, the scope of protection of the present disclosure should be based on the scope of protection of the claims.

Claims

1. A method for evaluating the results of food sample review and inspection items, characterized in that: include: If the test method for the recheck test item has repeatability limits, reproducibility limits or precision, the capability assessment standard deviation shall be calculated based on the precision test; If the test method for the recheck test item does not have repeatability limits, reproducibility limits or precision, the capability assessment standard deviation shall be calculated based on the Horvitz model; Calculate the degree of deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result of the re-inspection item based on the capability assessment standard deviation, the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result; Determining a review evaluation result of the review inspection item based on the deviation; Calculating the degree of deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result of the re-inspection item based on the capability assessment standard deviation, the initial inspection result, and the re-inspection result includes: The deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result of the re-inspection item is calculated by the first formula; the first formula is: in, Indicates the degree of deviation, Indicates the initial inspection results of the review inspection items. Indicates the retest results. Indicates the standard deviation of ability assessment.

2. The method for evaluating the results of food sample review and inspection items according to claim 1, wherein: The calculation capability assessment standard deviation based on the precision test includes: Calculate the repeatability standard deviation based on precision; Calculate the reproducibility standard deviation based on the repeatability standard deviation; The capability assessment standard deviation was calculated based on the reproducibility standard deviation.

3. The method for evaluating the results of food sample review and inspection items according to claim 1, wherein: The ability assessment standard deviation calculated based on the Horvitz model includes: The reproducibility standard deviation was calculated based on the Horwitz model; The capability assessment standard deviation was calculated based on the reproducibility standard deviation.

4. The method for evaluating the results of food sample review and inspection items according to claim 2 or 3, wherein: The reproducibility standard deviation The standard deviation of numeracy assessment includes: If the sample type corresponding to the recheck inspection item is industrial processed food and is a liquid sample, the formula or Standard deviation of numeracy assessment ; If the sample type corresponding to the recheck test item is industrial processed food and is solid powder, the formula or Standard deviation of numeracy assessment ; If the sample type corresponding to the recheck test item is industrial processed food and the matrix is ​​solid particles or blocks, the formula or Standard deviation of numeracy assessment ; If the sample type corresponding to the review inspection item is edible agricultural products, the formula Standard deviation of numeracy assessment .

5. The method for evaluating the results of food sample review and inspection items according to claim 1, wherein: The re-inspection items are performed by two re-inspection institutions, and the two re-inspection institutions obtain the first re-inspection results and the second re-inspection results respectively. The method for evaluating the results of the food sample re-inspection items also includes: The first re-inspection result and the second re-inspection result are respectively determined as re-inspection results, a first deviation and a second deviation are calculated, and the deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result is determined based on the first deviation and the second deviation.

6. The method for evaluating the results of food sample review and inspection items according to claim 5, wherein: The determining of the deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result based on the first deviation and the second deviation includes: If both the first deviation and the second deviation are smaller than a first threshold or both the first deviation and the second deviation are greater than or equal to the first threshold, an average of the first deviation and the second deviation is determined as the deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result; If one of the first deviation and the second deviation is greater than or equal to a first threshold, a third re-inspection agency is added, and the deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result is determined based on the third re-inspection result of the third re-inspection agency.

7. The method for evaluating the results of food sample review and inspection items according to claim 1, wherein: Determining the review evaluation results of the review inspection items based on the deviation includes: If the deviation is less than the first threshold, the review evaluation result of the review inspection item is determined to have passed the review inspection; If the degree of deviation is greater than or equal to the first threshold, the review evaluation result of the review inspection item is determined to have failed the review inspection.

8. A food sample review and inspection result evaluation system, characterized in that: include: The capability assessment standard deviation calculation module is used to calculate the capability assessment standard deviation based on the precision test if the detection method of the review inspection item has repeatability limit, reproducibility limit or precision; If the test method for the recheck test item does not have repeatability limits, reproducibility limits or precision, the capability assessment standard deviation shall be calculated based on the Horvitz model; A deviation calculation module, configured to calculate the deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result of the re-inspection item based on the capability assessment standard deviation, the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result; A review result output module, used to determine a review evaluation result of the review inspection item based on the deviation; The deviation calculation module is specifically used for: The deviation between the initial inspection result and the re-inspection result of the re-inspection item is calculated by the first formula; the first formula is: in, Indicates the degree of deviation, Indicates the initial inspection results of the review inspection items. Indicates the retest results. Indicates the standard deviation of ability assessment.

9. An electronic device comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and running on the processor, characterized in that: When the processor executes the computer program, the steps of the method according to any one of claims 1 to 7 are implemented.

Images