MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Methylglyoxal Content in Drinking Coffee as a Cytotoxic Factor

2010· article· en· W2003100591 on OpenAlexaff
J. Wang, Tuanjie Chang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Glycation End Products research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatchewan Health Authority
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMethylglyoxalSugarFood scienceChemistryRoastingBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A causal relationship between metabolic syndrome and methylglyoxal (MG) has been suggested. Consumption of coffee and other types of beverages has been known to produce MG, thus resulting in both nutritional and health concerns. The purpose of this study was to determine the ideal combination of coffee, cream, and sugar in order to minimize MG consumption. Four types of black coffee were tested: espresso, bold, mild, and a decaffeinated mild roast. Sugar and/or cream were added to the coffee samples to test whether MG levels were altered. Using high-performance liquid chromatography, the concentration of MG in various coffee samples was determined. The espresso coffee sample was found to contain the highest level of MG at 230.9 microM. The bold coffee roast had the 2nd highest amount of MG, followed by the mild and decaffeinated varieties. Adding cream to bold coffee significantly reduced its MG level in comparison to the coffee sample without cream. On the other hand, the addition of sugar to the bold coffee did not further increase the MG level in the samples. The cellular damaging effect of MG was shown as there were decreased numbers of cultured HEK-293 cells after 24 h of MG treatment (100 and 300 microM), which is consistent with an increased cell apoptosis induced by MG treatment (100 and 300 microM). Due to the overconsumption of exogenous MG, drinking an excess of any type of coffee poses health risks.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.205

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations44
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicAdvanced Glycation End Products researchFrench-language works237,207