Comparison of gluten recovery in gluten-incurred buckwheat flour using different commercial test kits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recovery of gluten in buckwheat flour was evaluated as part of an effort to produce wheat-contaminated buckwheat flours that could be used as reference materials (RMs) for testing the presence of gluten in buckwheat. RMs of buckwheat containing 0, 20, 100 and 1000 ppm gluten were created and tested by ELISA. The Gluten-Check kit detected gluten accurately at all levels; RIDASCREEN and Biokits tests were accurate at 20 and 100 ppm levels, but at 1000 ppm both suffered from extraction saturation effect; Veratox kit read 60% higher for the 20 ppm RM (i.e., 31.9 ppm), but close to the target at 100 ppm RM; Veratox R5 kit showed low accuracy with around 30% recovery at 20 and 100 ppm and some 60% at 1000 ppm level. Overall, the results showed variations in recovery among different test kits which could have important implications in the accurate detection of gluten in buckwheat.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".