MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022990342 · doi:10.1080/10408690590900144

Challenges in the Addition of Probiotic Cultures to Foods

2005· review· en· W2022990342 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProbioticFood scienceLactobacillus acidophilusFunctional foodHealth benefitsBiotechnologyFood industryBiologyFood productsBusinessMedicineTraditional medicineBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Probiotic cultures are increasingly being added to foods in order to develop products with health-promoting properties. Although the literature is abundant on the beneficial effects of bifidobacteria and Lactobacillus acidophilus on health, little information is available on the challenges industry faces in adding these probiotic cultures to food products. The aim of this article is to examine seven issues that should be addressed when developing functional foods: 1) type or form of probiotic that should be used; 2) addition level required to have a beneficial effect; 3) toxicity; 4) effect of the processing steps on viability; 5) determination, in the product, of the cell populations added; 6) stability during storage; 7) changes in sensory properties of the foods.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.315

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.217
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.181 · 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