MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072675284 · doi:10.1021/jf9913099

Influence of Pyrolytic and Aqueous-Phase Reactions on the Mechanism of Formation of Maillard Products

2000· article· en· W2072675284 on OpenAlexaff
Andrzej Wnorowski, Varoujan A. Yaylayan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Glycation End Products research
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaillard reactionChemistryAqueous solutionPyrolysisDecarboxylationPyrolytic carbonReaction mechanismOrganic chemistryAcetic acidAqueous two-phase system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of the reaction phase on the mechanism of formation of Maillard products was studied by comparison of (13)C-label incorporation patterns of the common products formed in model systems consisting of labeled glycine and D-glucoses subjected to both pyrolysis and heating in aqueous solutions. Pyrolysis experiments were performed at 250 degrees C for 20 s, and aqueous model systems were heated in sealed vials for 3 h at 120 degrees C followed by GC/MS analysis. Label incorporation patterns of the following compounds were analyzed: cyclotene, furanmethanol, acetylpyrrole, 5-methyl-pyrrole, trimethylpyrazine, acetic acid, 3-hydroxy-2-butanone, 2,3-butanedione, and 2-methyl-4, 5-dihydro-3(2H)-furanone. Although pyrolysis reaction produced higher number of products, however, the major pathways of formation of variety of important Maillard products followed the same mechanism under both pyrolytic and aqueous systems. Furthermore, contrary to literature speculations, 2-methyl-4, 5-dihydro-3(2H)-furanone was shown to be formed by ring contraction of 2,3-dihydro-3,5-dihydroxy-6-methyl-4(H)-pyran-4-one, through benzilic acid rearrangement, followed by decarboxylation.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations88
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicAdvanced Glycation End Products researchFrench-language works237,207