## 4 Conclusions
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**MPD**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Validation**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Uncertain**} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Samples Assigned**} & \multirow{2}{*}{**Non-EVOO Samples Assigned to a Category**} \\ \cline{4-6}  & & & & **to a Category** & & \\ \cline{4-6}  & & **Set 1** & & **Total (\%)** & & **Correct (\%) as** & **Correct (\%)** & **Correct (\%)** \\  & & & & **Non-EVOO 2** & & **as VOO 3** & **as LOO 3** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{**FUSTY-MUODY**} & 1 (\(n=15\)) & 0 (0/15) & 100 (15/15) & 93.3 (14/15) & 77.8 (7/9) & 83.3 (5/6) \\  & 2 (\(n=19\)) & 21.1 (4/19) & 78.9 (15/19) & 100 (15/15) & 100 (12/12) & 66.7 (2/3) \\  & 3 (\(n=17\)) & 35.3 (6/17) & 64.7 (11/17) & 100 (11/11) & 83.3 (5/6) & 100 (5/5) \\  & 4 (\(n=20\)) & 20.0 (4/20) & 80.0 (16/20) & 87.5 (14/16) & 62.5 (5/8) & 87.5 (7/8) \\  & 5 (\(n=15\)) & 20.0 (3/15) & 80.0 (12/15) & 91.7 (11/2) & 66.7 (4/6) & 83.3 (5/6) \\  & 6 (\(n=19\)) & 10.5 (2/19) & 89.5 (17/19) & 94.1 (16/17) & 92.3 (12/3) & 75.0 (3/4) \\  & 7 (\(n=20\)) & 5.0 (1/20) & 95.0 (19/20) & 90.0 (18/20) & 85.7 (12/14) & 100 (5/5) \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Weighted Mean**} & **16.0** & **84.0** & **93.4** & **83.8** & **86.5** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{**MUSTY-HUMID-EARTHY**} & 1 (\(n=7\)) & 0 (0/7) & 100 (7/7) & 85.7 (6/7) & 33.3 (1/3) & 75.00 (3/4) \\  & 2 (\(n=4\)) & 0 (0/4) & 100 (4/4) & 100 (4/4) & 100 (1/1) & 66.7 (2/3) \\ \cline{1-1}  & 3 (\(n=7\)) & 28.6 (2/7) & 71.4 (5/7) & 100 (5/5) & 0 (0/2) & 100 (3/3) \\ \cline{1-1}  & 4 (\(n=2\)) & 0 (0/2) & 10 (2/10) & 100 (1/22) & 100 (1/1) & 100 (1/1) \\ \cline{1-1}  & 5 (\(n=7\)) & 14.3 (1/7) & 85.7 (6/7) & 100 (6/6) & 50 (1/2) & 75.0 (3/4) \\ \cline{1-1}  & 6 (\(n=5\)) & 20.0 (1/5) & 80.0 (4/5) & 100 (4/4) & (0/0) & 75.0 (3/4) \\ \cline{1-1}  & 7 (\(n=6\)) & 33.3 (2/6) & 66.7 (4/6) & 100 (4/4) & (0/0) & 100 (4/4) \\ \hline \multicolumn{6}{c}{**Weighted Mean**} & **15.8** & **84.2** & **97** & **44.4** & **82.6** \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
* All validation sets included 36 non-EVOO samples (22 VOO and 14 LOO). However, the number of samples with _m_c_id (\(n=10\)–14), _f_sty-muddy (\(n=15\)–20) or _m_sty-humid-earthy (\(n=2\)–7) as main defect differed between sets as a result of random selection according to the commercial category.’ Classification of non-EVOO samples as non-EVOO by the first PLS-DA model (EVOO vs. non-EVOO); 3 Classification of non-EVOO samples by the second PLS-DA model (LOO vs. VOO).  
\end{table} 
Table 3: _Cont._  
**Supplementary Materials:** The following are available online at [[http://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/9/10/1509/s1](http://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/9/10/1509/s1)]([http://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/9/10/1509/s1](http://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/9/10/1509/s1)). Figure S1: Inter-day (a) and intra-day (b) repeatability plot for the in-house validation of the analytical outcomes. Table S1: Classification results for every virgin olive oil sample in the seven random sets: commercial category assigned by the panel tests, predicted value (PV) and predicted category (PC) for the cross-validation (CV) of each binary model (EVOO/non-EVOO and VOO/LOO) and for the external validation of the whole classification strategy. Table S2: Comparison between alignment approaches: (a) Global alignment and (b) Alignment \"per batch\" through PCA and PLS-DA outcomes. **Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, A.T., S.V., A.B. and T.G.T. ; methodology, B.Q.-C., A.T., S.V. ; validation, B.Q.-C., A.T. and S.V. ; formal analysis, B.Q.-C. and M.M. ; investigation, B.Q.-C., F.G., A.T. and S.V. ; resources, S.B., A.B. and T.G.T. ; data curation, B.Q.-C. and M.M. ; writing--original draft preparation, B.Q.-C.; writing--review and editing, F.G., D.L.G.-G., A.B., T.G.T., A.T. and S.V. ; supervision, F.G., A.T. and S.V. ; project administration, D.L.G.-G., A.B. and T.G.T. ; funding acquisition, A.B. and T.G.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.