The antioxidant effect of natural substances on lipids during irradiation of chicken legs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Entire fresh chicken legs were subjected to three pretreatments (packaged in air; packaged under vacuum; or marinated in natural plant extracts and packaged in air) followed by irradiation (0, 3, or 5 kGy). The control and irradiated chicken legs were stored at 4°C and analyzed for FA composition and sensory quality at predetermined intervals. Irradiation dose had a significant (P<‐0.01) effect on FA derived from phospholipid but less than on FA derived from a neutral lipid. In general, levels of unsaturated FA decreased as the radiation dose increased; however, for marinated chicken legs irradiated with 5 kGy, levels of linoleic acid (C18∶2) and arachidonic acid (C20∶4) derived from the phospholipid fraction were significanlty (P≤0.05) higher than those irradiated in air or under vacuum. The concentration of FA also decreased significantly (P≤0.05) as storage time increased. For chicken legs packaged in air or marinated and then packaged in air, significant (P≤0.01) inverse correlations existed between high‐carbon‐number PUFA and lower‐carbon‐number (≤17) saturated FA; this relationship was not apparent in samples irradiated under vacuum. A processing combination of marinating and vacuum packaging might better control lipid oxidation and degradation in irradiated chicken. Panelists found no significant difference (P>0.05) in the flavor and oder intensity of cooked irradiated chicken legs and their nonirradiated equivalents.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".