MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032539804 · doi:10.1021/jf020058s

Extraction of Fumonisins B<sub>1</sub> and B<sub>2</sub> from White Rice Flour and Their Stability in White Rice Flour, Cornstarch, Cornmeal, and Glucose

2002· article· en· W2032539804 on OpenAlexaff
Eun‐Kyung Kim, Peter Scott, Ben Lau, David Lewis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFumonisin B1Food scienceChemistryWhite riceRice flourFumonisinMycotoxinWheat flourChromatographyRaw material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To extract fumonisin B1 (FB1) and fumonisin B2 (FB2) from Thai white rice flour, different solvent mixtures, temperatures, pH values, and addition of enzymes or ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid disodium salt (Na2EDTA) were examined. Three extractions with 0.1 M Na2EDTA achieved the highest recoveries. Initial recoveries of fumonisins added to white rice flour, cornstarch, cornmeal, and glucose varied with commodity. Fumonisins disappeared in Thai white rice flour after 12 h, but 55% remained in another white rice flour. With cornstarch 20-30% fumonisins remained after 24 h; only 43% of 14C-labeled FB1 materials extracted from cornstarch was eluted with methanol from an immunoaffinity column. Fumonisins were stable in cornmeal for 24 h but only approximately 50% remained after 30 days. With glucose, 25% of FB1 and FB2 remained 24 h after addition; N-(1-deoxy-D-fructos-1-yl)FB(1) andN-(carboxymethyl)FB(1) were detected in lower amounts than residual FB(1) after 3 months.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.170 · 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
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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207