MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084463211 · doi:10.1080/10408390701424303

Advances in Dietary Enrichment with N-3 Fatty Acids

2008· review· en· W2084463211 on OpenAlexaff
Mohammed H. Moghadasian

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFatty Acid Research and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaSt. Boniface Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLinseed oilFood scienceFish oilFish mealPolyunsaturated fatty acidOrganolepticFatty acidMealChemistryBiologyFish <Actinopterygii>Biochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Evidence for the effectiveness of the enrichment of food products with n-3 fatty acids by inclusion of either plant- or fish-derived materials in the diets of chickens, turkeys, ostriches, cows, pigs, and goats has been reviewed. Both linseed oil/meal and fish products can increase the levels of total n-3 fatty acids in animal products, including milk, eggs, meat, and deli products. The extent of this increase in n-3 fatty acid contents seems to be dependent on the nature of diet supplementation. Encapsulation of linseed oil may result in higher milk cow ALA contents, as compared to unprotected linseed oil. Available literature indicates that the levels of EPA and DHA in food products may be increased more, if the animals' diet was supplemented with fish products rather than linseed products. However, organoleptic properties of food products may be compromised. This pitfall may be reduced by the addition of antioxidants and/or application of micro-encapsulation. Generation of transgenic animals and plants has shown very promising results. Thus far, transgenic pigs and mice have been successfully generated. These animals have a low ratio of n-6:n-3 fatty acids in their tissues and milk. The advantages and disadvantages of the above-mentioned methods have been discussed. The evidence for health-promoting effects of such enriched food products has been included.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations133
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicFatty Acid Research and HealthFrench-language works237,207