MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099900760 · doi:10.1021/jf8001813

Extensive Analysis of Long-Chain Polyunsaturated Fatty Acids, CLA, <i>trans</i>-18:1 Isomers, and Plasmalogenic Lipids in Different Retail Beef types

2008· article· en· W2099900760 on OpenAlexaff
Jana Kraft, John K. G. Kramer, Jim R. Chambers, Gerhard Jahreis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolyunsaturated fatty acidFood scienceComposition (language)Beef cattleChemistryFatty acidBeef industryBiologyBiochemistryAnimal scienceAgricultural science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this investigation was to provide a comprehensive analysis of the total lipid composition of present-day retail beef meat available at the consumer level and to evaluate the total lipid composition with special emphasis on the nutritional value. For this purpose, 40 beef cuts were obtained from four cattle farms based on either a natural grazing system (NGS) or an intensive production system (IPS). The total lipid composition was analyzed using complementary chemical and chromatographic procedures. The content of n-3 LC-PUFA, CLA, total trans-18:1, and branched-chain fatty acids was significantly higher in NGS beef than in IPS beef. The trans-18:1 and CLA profiles were affected by the different production systems, whereby they can be utilized empirically to differentiate between feeding regimen and production management. Fatty acid ratios that have health implications ( n-6/ n-3, LA/alphaLNA, and AA/EPA) were remarkably beneficial for NGS beef compared with IPS beef. In conclusion, from the human health perspective, beef raised on NGS is clearly superior with regard to a more favorable fatty acid profile in comparison to IPS beef.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.292

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.185 · 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

Citations65
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207