MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2159095056 · doi:10.1080/10731190701460226

Impact of Orally Administered Microcapsules on Gastrointestinal Microbial Flora: In-Vitro Investigation Using Computer Controlled Dynamic Human Gastrointestinal Model

2007· article· en· W2159095056 on OpenAlexaff
Fatemeh Afkhami, Wei Ouyang, Hongmei Chen, Bisi Lawuyi, Trisna Lim, Satya Prakash

Bibliographic record

VenueArtificial Cells Blood Substitutes and Biotechnology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPectinFlora (microbiology)ProbioticMicrobiologyPopulationIn vitroIn vivoLysineLactobacillusGastrointestinal tractChemistryFood scienceBacteriaBiologyBiochemistryMedicineBiotechnologyFermentationAmino acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oral administration of artificial cell microcapsules has been proposed for various therapy procedures using biologically active materials. Recently we have designed novel APPPA microcapsules using alginate, poly-L-lysine, pectin, poly-L-lysine and alginate that have shown superior oral delivery features. This article investigates, in-vitro using a computer controlled dynamic gastrointestinal (GI) model, effects of APPPA microcapsules on health of gastrointestinal (GI) microbial flora. The impact of APPPA microcapsules on GI bacterial population, total anaerobes, total aerobes, Escherichia coli, Lactobacillus sp. and Staphylococcus sp. has been analyzed. In addition, the effects of microcapsules on GI microbial extracellular enzymatic activities have been investigated. Result shows the altered activities of microbial flora and enzymes due to the use of APPPA microcapsule. The most disparity is observed in the colon ascendans microbial activities. This study would have significant impact on future microcapsule design. However, further in-vivo studies are required.

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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArtificial Cells Blood Substitutes and BiotechnologySame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207