Gluten contamination of naturally gluten-free flours and starches used by Canadians with celiac disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A large national investigation into the extent of gluten cross-contamination of naturally gluten-free ingredients (flours and starches) sold in Canada was performed. Samples (n = 640) were purchased from eight Canadian cities and via the internet during the period 2010-2012 and analysed for gluten contamination. The results showed that 61 of the 640 (9.5%) samples were contaminated above the Codex-recommended maximum level for gluten-free products (20 mg kg⁻¹) with a range of 5-7995 mg kg⁻¹. For the ingredients that were labelled gluten-free the contamination range (5-141 mg kg⁻¹) and number of samples were lower (3 of 268). This picture was consistent over time, with approximately the same percentage of samples above 20 mg kg⁻¹ in both the initial set and the subsequent lot. Looking at the total mean (composite) contamination for specific ingredients the largest and most consistent contaminations come from higher fibre ingredients such as soy (902 mg kg⁻¹), millet (272 mg kg⁻¹) and buckwheat (153 mg kg⁻¹). Of the naturally gluten-free flours and starches tested that do not contain a gluten-free label, the higher fibre ingredients would constitute the greatest probability of being contaminated with gluten above 20 mg kg⁻¹.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".