MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974810494 · doi:10.1177/154411130201300208

I<scp>nteraction of</scp> P<scp>lant</scp> P<scp>olyphenols with</scp> S<scp>alivary</scp> P<scp>roteins</scp>

2002· review· en· W1974810494 on OpenAlexaff
Anders Bennick

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine · 2002
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicFermentation and Sensory Analysis
Canadian institutionsCanada Research ChairsUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research Council
KeywordsTanninPolyphenolChemistryBiochemistryProlineSalivaProanthocyanidinFood scienceAmino acidAntioxidant

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tannins are polyphenols that occur widespread in plant-based food. They are considered to be part of the plant defense system against environmental stressors. Tannins have a number of effects on animals, including growth-rate depression and inhibition of digestive enzymes. Tannins also have an effect on humans: They are, for example, the cause of byssinosis, a condition that is due to exposure to airborne tannin. Their biological effect is related to the great efficiency by which tannins precipitate proteins, an interaction that occurs by hydrophobic forces and hydrogen bonding. Two groups of salivary proteins, proline-rich proteins and histatins, are highly effective precipitators of tannin, and there is evidence that at least proline-rich proteins act as a first line of defense against tannins, perhaps by precipitating tannins in food and preventing their absorption from the alimentary canal. Proline plays an important role in the interaction of proline-rich proteins with tannins. In contrast, it is primarily basic residues that are responsible for the binding of histatins to tannin. The high concentration of tannin-binding proteins in human saliva may be related to the fruit and vegetable diet of human ancestors.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.060

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0180.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.099
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations431
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Oral Biology & MedicineSame topicFermentation and Sensory AnalysisFrench-language works237,207