MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2039989053 · doi:10.1002/ejlt.201100348

<i>Cis</i> and <i>trans</i> components of lipids: Analysis by <sup>1</sup>H NMR and silver shift reagents

2012· article· en· W2039989053 on OpenAlexaff
Alexia Agiomyrgianaki, Jacqueline Sedman, F.R. van de Voort, Photis Dais

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Lipid Science and Technology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDegree of unsaturationChemistryReagentAllylic rearrangementDouble bondCis–trans isomerismProton NMRNMR spectra databaseCarbon-13 NMRMoleculeSpectral lineOrganic chemistryCatalysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study, the methodology of shift reagents was exploited to distinguish cis and trans unsaturation in oils and fats. The differential binding of silver ions (in the form of AgFOD) to cis and trans double bonds allowed the separation of the allylic and olefinic proton signals in the 1 H NMR spectra of mixtures of cis and trans methyl esters of monoene aliphatic acids and unsaturated triacylglycerol mixtures at low frequency spectrometers (300 MHz). Careful integration of the appropriate proton resonances in the recorded quantitative 1 H NMR spectra afforded percentage concentrations in very good agreement with the actual values. This 1 H NMR methodology was validated by analyzing AOCS Laboratory Proficiency Program GC samples containing various percentages of saturated, cis ‐mono unsaturated, and cis ‐polyunsaturated fat as well as trans content. This fast and relatively low‐cost NMR methodology could be used on line for obtaining nutrition labeling compositional data (NLCD) required for fat‐containing food products. Attempts to differentiate lipid molecules with different degree of unsaturation and positional distribution of cis double bonds were unsuccessful.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.556
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.222
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Lipid Science and TechnologySame topicMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesFrench-language works237,207