## 4 Results and Discussion
### Study on High-Reputation Products and Their Related Ingredient Characteristics
#### 4.2.2 Spatial Distribution of High-Reputation Products  
To evaluate product reputation, we define a product as receiving user approval if a user provides a positive review on either the \"Taste\" or \"Ingredient\" topic. The proportion of users giving such approvals is termed the \"reputation score\". Products whose reputation scores exceed the upper quartile are considered \"high-reputation products\". For accuracy, we focus only on the 396 products that appear in the heterogeneous food-ingredient information space and have more than three reviews.  
Figure 6A,B show the spatial distribution of high-reputation products determined by adjusted sentiment scores (Figure 6A) and by original consumer ratings (Figure 6B), following the methods in this study. Red boxes highlight regions where high-reputation products based on adjusted scores cluster densely, while green boxes highlight regions where high-reputation products based on original reputation scores cluster. We observe that high-reputation products defined by adjusted ratings are more widely distributed across the space (Figure 6A, red boxes). In Region 1, all 11 products are identified as high-reputation and do not contain traditional gluten ingredients (such as wheat, barley, or rye). Ten of these products explicitly feature gluten-free in their names and formulations. Most formulations in this region also use organic ingredients, including nutrient-rich seeds (e.g., flaxseeds, chia seeds, hemp seeds) and nuts (e.g., almonds, cashews), along with natural sweeteners (e.g., maple syrup, coconut sugar, and fructose) instead of refined sugars, emphasizing green, healthy, and low-allergen products. In Region 2, all six products qualify as high-reputation items that share a focus on various seeds, natural sweeteners, and organic and natural ingredients, aiming for comprehensive nutrition. They incorporate whole grains, dietary fiber, healthy fats, and natural sweetness, making them suitable for a general healthy diet. By comparison, Region 1 emphasizes low-allergen and gluten-free nutritional sources more strongly.  
Figure 5: Sentiment distribution of consumer reviews across five topics. (**A**) Number of user reviews associated with each topic. (**B–F**) Sentiment score distribution for consumer reviews across the five topics.  
High-reputation products identified by original rating scores did not achieve the same clustering scale described above. In some regions, high-reputation products defined by these two different methods even show divergent outcomes. For instance, in the five high-reputation regions identified using either adjusted or original scores, most products exhibit entirely opposite evaluations under the two perspectives.  
To understand this phenomenon, we calculated \"relative topic sentiment scores\" for five sample regions, first determining the average sentiment score for each topic and then deriving the proportion of each topic score relative to the total of all topics (Figure 6C). Although taste and ingredient scores are more prominent across all five regions, these two topics dominate, especially in Regions 1 and 2, each exceeding 0.35--significantly higher than the remaining three topics. In contrast, Region 3 shows a notable emphasis on price, Region 4 focuses on delivery, and Region 5 stands out in price and packaging, with a much lower taste score (under half that of the other regions). Evidently, price, delivery, and packaging play major roles for consumers. However, the adjusted rating method used here more effectively filters high-reputation products related to ingredient factors, offering clearer insights into consumer attitudes and preferences regarding food formulations.