MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024216641 · doi:10.1007/s00216-009-2943-1

Emerging analytical methods to determine gluten markers in processed foods—method development in support of standard setting

2009· article· en· W2024216641 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dorcas Weber, Chantal Cléroux, Samuel Benrejeb Godefroy

Bibliographic record

VenueAnalytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCeliac Disease Research and Management
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlutenDeclarationBiotechnologyRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceBusinessFood scienceChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The availability of analytical methods to detect and determine levels of markers of priority allergens in foods is of the utmost importance to support standard setting initiatives, the development of compliance and enforcement activities, as well as to provide guidance to industry on implementation of quality control practices, ensuring the effectiveness of allergen-related sanitation techniques. This paper describes the development and implementation of a mass-spectrometry-based technique to determine markers for individual sources of gluten in beer products. This methodology was shown to answer the requirements of Health Canada's proposed labeling standard for individual gluten source declaration, in order to achieve its policy objectives (i.e., protection of sensitive consumers, while promoting choice). Minimal sample work-up was required and the results obtained by ELISA were further complemented using the LC-MS/MS method. This paper aims to demonstrate the feasibility of alternative techniques to ELISA-based methodologies to determine allergen and gluten markers in food.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnalytical and Bioanalytical ChemistrySame topicCeliac Disease Research and ManagementFrench-language works237,207