MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2089740218 · doi:10.1196/annals.1433.028

<i>Antioxidant Activity and Chemical Properties of Crude and Fractionated Maillard Reaction Products Derived from Four Sugar<b>–</b>Amino Acid Maillard Reaction Model Systems</i>

2008· article· en· W2089740218 on OpenAlexaff
Xiumin Chen, David D. Kitts

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAdvanced Glycation End Products research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMaillard reactionChemistrySugarOrganic chemistryReducing sugarAntioxidantBiochemistryFood science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antioxidant activity of Maillard reaction products (MRPs) derived from four sugar-amino acid Maillard reaction model systems (glucose [Glc] or ribose [Rib] reacted with glycine [Gly] and L-lysine [Lys]) were examined in terms of chemical properties and molecular weight fractionation of reaction products. Rib-amino acid model systems produced MRPs with higher antioxidant activity than Glc-amino acid model MRPs (P < 0.05, Rib-Lys > Rib-Gly > Glc-Lys > Glc-Gly). In the same sugar or same amino acid model systems, antioxidant activity of MRPs was negatively related to the final pH, fluorescent intensity, and the content of dicarbonyl compounds. Antioxidant activity positively related to the production of late-stage browning MRPs. Fraction I from the Glc-Lys model system separated by gel filtration chromatography had the highest oxygen radical absorbance capacity (ORAC) value (1736 micromol Trolox/g MRP). Fraction IV from the Rib-Lys model system had a higher ORAC value compared to Fraction III. This result indicated that high molecular weight MRPs do not necessarily have higher antioxidant activity compared to low molecular weight MRPs.

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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.385

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Citations51
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of the New York Academy of SciencesSame topicAdvanced Glycation End Products researchFrench-language works237,207