MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010708618 · doi:10.1021/jf000881t

Improved Storage Stability of Model Infant Formula by Whey Peptides Fractions

2001· article· en· W2010708618 on OpenAlexaff
Nathalie Lajoie, Sylvie F. Gauthier, Yves Pouliot

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive Peptides
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCreamingHydrolysateChemistryCarrageenanHydrolysisChromatographyUltrafiltration (renal)Infant formulaWhey protein isolateWhey proteinFood scienceEmulsionOrganic chemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shelf-life stability (6 months) of model infant formula with whey protein hydrolysates or peptidic fractions as carrageenan replacers. Whey protein hydrolysates were prepared with trypsin and followed by ultrafiltration of the hydrolyzed mixture, and peptidic fractions were isolated from the ultrafiltered tryptic hydrolysate by anion- or cation-exchange chromatography. The stability of the model infant formula was evaluated using a stratification method based on fat content differences between the top and bottom strata of the samples. With protein hydrolysate-based formulations, the creaming rate of the fat in the product was slightly higher than in the standard formulation (with carrageenan), which is indicative of lower storage stability. The addition of cationic fractions to model infant formula also resulted in lower product stability, whereas the fat creaming rate was retarded in anionic fraction based formulations. The physicochemical characteristics of certain peptides combined with the reported high emulsifying properties of peptidic sequences found within these fractions may account for their ability to act as carrageenan replacers.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.363

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations17
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive PeptidesFrench-language works237,207