The Effect of Stevia rebaudiana on the Growth and Survival of Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1 and Sensory Properties of Probiotic Yogurt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"></span><strong><span style="font-family: &quot;Times New Roman&quot;,&quot;serif&quot;; font-size: 10pt;" lang="EN-US"></span></strong>This study evaluated the effect of various sweetening agents on sensory properties of probiotic yogurt. The growth and survival of <em>Lactobacillus rhamnosus</em><em> </em>GR-1 in yogurt was measured at 1, 14 and 28 days of storage. Bacterial growth reached a range of 10<sup>8</sup>-10<sup>9</sup> Colony Forming Units (CFU) ml<sup>-1</sup> over the storage period for six probiotic yogurt samples (0.12% stevia, 0.12% stevia-inulin-chromium (SIC), 1.0% sucralose, 5.0% sucrose, 6.0% xylitol and a control). Sensory panelists (n = 109) used a 9-point hedonic scale and evaluated five sensory characteristics (flavour, appearance, sweetness, texture, and overall quality) of the four sweetened probiotic yogurts (0.12% stevia, 0.12% SIC, 1.0% sucralose and 5.0% sucrose). The sucralose sample was significantly preferred for all five characteristics (P &lt; 0.001) and the sucrose sample was significantly liked more than both the stevia and SIC samples for all characteristics except flavour (P &lt; 0.001). Overall, the stevia sample received higher mean scores than the SIC sample.<span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"> </span>
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".