Abstract Pivot© profile (PP), a method which compares samples to a reference (pivot), has shown profiling potential for complex matrices. However, various aspects require further investigation. This study’s aim was to compare PP to frequency of attribute citation (FC) considering individual judges’ data and sample set complexity. A trained panel analysed three wine sets with different within-set product similarity levels. The stability of the PP sensory space was tested by changing the pivot. PP and FC results were compared using RV coefficients. Confidence ellipses on correspondence analysis (CA) plots were constructed to consider individual judges’ data. CA plots constructed from different pivot PP data sets, were less similar to each other, than to CA plots of FC data, for the set with medium and the set with high within-set variation. The most profound differences were observed for the set with the high within-set variation. PP configurations of the set with low within-set variation, were more similar to each other than to FC configurations. Higher explained variance was obtained with PP than FC, but confidence ellipses overlapped more frequently indicating fewer significant differences between samples. PP and FC data were comparable for the set with medium within-set variation. From this study’s results PP is recommended for wine profiling if medium within-set variation between samples exist but not when sample sets with low or high within-set variation are profiled. PP is recommended over FC for comparative studies where a reference sample is required for example during benchmarking or for aging and shelf-life studies.

中文翻译：

---

Pivot Profile© 与属性引用频率的比较：使用训练有素的评估员分析复杂产品

Abstract Pivot© profile (PP) 是一种将样本与参考（pivot）进行比较的方法，已显示出分析复杂矩阵的潜力。但是，各个方面都需要进一步调查。本研究的目的是将 PP 与属性引用频率 (FC) 进行比较，同时考虑到个别法官的数据和样本集的复杂性。一个训练有素的小组分析了具有不同组内产品相似度水平的三组葡萄酒。通过改变枢轴来测试PP感觉空间的稳定性。使用 RV 系数比较 PP 和 FC 结果。构建对应分析 (CA) 图上的置信椭圆以考虑个别法官的数据。与 FC 数据的 CA 图相比，从不同的枢轴 PP 数据集构建的 CA 图彼此不太相似，对于具有中等和具有高集内变异的集。对于具有高组内变异的组观察到最深刻的差异。组内变异低的组的 PP 配置比 FC 配置更相似。PP 比 FC 获得了更高的解释方差，但置信椭圆重叠更频繁，表明样本之间的显着差异更少。PP 和 FC 数据对于具有中等组内变异的组具有可比性。根据本研究的结果，如果样本之间存在中等组内变异，则建议将 PP 用于葡萄酒分析，但在分析具有低或高组内变异的样本组时则不推荐使用 PP。对于需要参考样品的比较研究，例如在基准测试或老化和保质期研究期间，建议使用 PP 而非 FC。