Search

Driven by the worldwide surge in fish maw commerce, authenticity verification has emerged as an urgent concern due to mounting adulteration incidents. Conventional approaches to verification—whether sensory-based, chemically oriented, or molecular—suffer from practical deployment constraints. The present study reframes fish maw genuineness assessment as a detection task within the object recognition paradigm and introduces RDT-YOLO, a streamlined detection model grounded in YOLO11n architecture. Addressing the twin difficulties of insufficient nuanced texture representation and processing overhead in this domain, we engineer hierarchically structured reparameterized modules for feature extraction that deploy reparameterization tactics to amplify multi-resolution texture discrimination. To counteract degradation of information arising during cross-scale feature merging, a Dynamic Adaptive Multi-Scale Pyramid Processing (DAMSPP) component is devised, integrating adaptive convolution dynamics that facilitate responsive feature synthesis. Concurrently, an Adaptive Task-Aligned Detection Head (ATADH) is formulated, fusing interactive task mechanisms with weight-shared convolutions to achieve parameter economy alongside precision gains. Moreover, Wise-ShapeIoU, a novel loss formulation, is constructed by injecting Wise-IoU's focusing coefficient into the Shape-IoU framework, thereby sharpening detection fidelity through refined contour alignment. Benchmark experiments confirm that RDT-YOLO delivers precision of 91.9%, recall of 89.6%, and [email protected] of 94% while slashing parameter count, storage footprint, and FLOPs by 75.6%, 73.8%, and 63.8%, respectively, against YOLO11s. Comparative trials versus YOLOv10s and YOLOv12s reveal [email protected] elevations of 0.8 and 0.5 percentage points. This investigation furnishes an automated pipeline for verifying fish maw genuineness, bearing implications extending across food integrity applications.

Ensuring food quality, safety, and authenticity has become a central challenge for contemporary food systems because risks now emerge across production, processing, distribution, retail, and consumption. Artificial intelligence is increasingly used to interpret complex food data, including spectral signals, images, sensor outputs, molecular profiles, traceability records, and supply-chain alerts. These developments suggest that AI can support a shift from reactive food inspection toward predictive and preventive food integrity assurance. Despite this promise, AI applications in food quality, safety, and authenticity often remain separated across disciplinary and technological domains. Sensing studies focus on detection accuracy, prediction studies focus on model performance, traceability studies focus on chain-of-custody infrastructure, and explainable AI studies focus on interpretability. This fragmentation limits the field’s ability to understand how these components could function together as an integrated assurance system. This integrative review synthesises 31 peer-reviewed articles published between 2017 and 2025 across food science, analytical chemistry, sensing technology, food informatics, and artificial intelligence. The review examines four interconnected domains: sensing technologies and data sources, prediction models for quality and safety, traceability and authenticity verification, and explainable decision systems. Its purpose is not to report new empirical data, but to integrate diverse research streams into a coherent conceptual understanding of AI-enabled food integrity assurance. The review shows that AI has already demonstrated value in optical sensing, spectroscopy, imaging, authenticity testing, shelf-life prediction, risk assessment, fraud detection, and traceability analysis. However, most applications are still designed as isolated models rather than as connected decision systems. Three tables classify sensing technologies, categorise prediction models, and present an integrative framework linking detection, prediction, provenance, and explainable decisions. The central conclusion is that the technical components of AI-enabled food integrity assurance already exist, but they remain insufficiently integrated. Future research should move beyond stand-alone classification or prediction models and toward interoperable, explainable, and operationally validated systems. Such systems should connect sensing, prediction, traceability, and human decision-making across food supply chains.

Artificial intelligence is increasingly used in food safety systems to support contamination detection, shelf-life prediction, quality classification, inspection prioritisation, and risk scoring. These applications promise faster, more sensitive, and more scalable decision support across complex food supply chains. However, the same predictive complexity that makes AI useful can also make its outputs difficult for food safety professionals, regulators, and operators to interpret. The central problem addressed in this framework article is that AI-supported food safety decisions may become opaque, uncontestable, and weakly aligned with existing structures of regulatory responsibility. When risk scores or alerts cannot be understood, challenged, or traced to relevant evidence, they may undermine rather than strengthen food safety governance. This problem is especially serious because food safety decisions involve direct public health consequences, market consequences, and legal accountability. The objective of this article is to develop an original Explainable AI Framework tailored to food safety decision systems. The framework integrates four interdependent dimensions: risk interpretation, regulatory confidence, operational accountability, and human review. It treats explainability not only as a technical property of models but also as a governance condition for responsible food safety decision-making. The article is based on a conceptual synthesis of 27 peer-reviewed articles published between 2017 and 2025 across food safety, explainable artificial intelligence, algorithmic accountability, risk assessment, and digital food safety systems. It does not present new empirical data. Instead, it constructs a design and governance framework that can guide the development, validation, deployment, and oversight of AI-supported food safety tools. The proposed framework defines four pillars: interpretable risk communication, transparent regulatory evidence, accountable operational responsibility, and contestable human review. Together, these pillars show how food safety AI systems can become not only predictive but also auditable, trustworthy, and practically usable. The article argues that embedding explainability into food safety AI is a governance and trust-building imperative rather than a purely technical enhancement.

Food recalls remain essential instruments for protecting public health when unsafe, contaminated, mislabelled, or otherwise non-compliant products enter food supply chains. Yet many recall systems still operate primarily as downstream corrective mechanisms after hazards have already moved through production, distribution, retail, food service, or household channels. This reactive orientation can delay containment, increase exposure, and weaken public confidence in food safety governance. Conventional recall management is increasingly challenged by globalised sourcing, rapid distribution, e-commerce, multi-ingredient products, outsourced processing, fragmented traceability records, and uneven information sharing among actors. Weak risk signals may appear in laboratory data, consumer complaints, inspection findings, supplier records, online reports, or public health surveillance before they are recognised as recall-relevant evidence. When these signals remain disconnected, recall decisions may occur only after risk propagation has already widened. This article proposes a conceptual model for intelligent food recall systems that integrates early detection, risk signal fusion, network propagation mapping, coordinated response, accountability, and communication feedback. The model reframes recall management as a system intelligence problem rather than a narrow compliance, logistics, or product-removal task. It explains how anticipatory analytics and network-aware decision support can strengthen recall scope definition, actor alignment, and public communication. The contribution of the article is a structured conceptual framework for designing recall systems that are more anticipatory, traceable, coordinated, accountable, and adaptive. The model does not report new empirical data; rather, it synthesises food safety, artificial intelligence, supply-chain traceability, risk communication, and crisis-response perspectives into an integrated recall intelligence architecture. It offers a foundation for future empirical testing, digital system design, regulatory innovation, and food-industry implementation.