MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Biomedical and Pharmaceutical Application of Fish Collagen and Gelatin: A Review

2013· review· en· W2166796274 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeevithan Elango, Zhao Qingbo, Bin Bao, Wenhui Wu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nutritional Therapeutics · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicCollagen: Extraction and Characterization
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsGelatinFish <Actinopterygii>Fish processingExtraction (chemistry)ChemistryPulp and paper industryBiotechnologyBusinessBiologyFisheryBiochemistryEngineeringChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In last decade, more research has been conducted in order to find the better way for utilizing the wastes product generated from food processing industries. The increasing demand of industrial by-products is one of the main reasons for the conversion of these wastes into valuable products. Among the different valuable products from the waste, the extraction of collagen and gelatin could be a better way of utilizing the wastes, due to their effective applications in biomedical and pharmaceutical industries. The most abundant source of collagen and gelatin are land-based animals, such as cow and pig. However, the extraction of collagen and gelatin from non-mammalian sources such as fish has been high influences in current society due to some religious and disease transmission issues. Many studies have dealt with the extraction and functional properties of collagen and gelatin from fish wastes. The present work is a compilation of information on biomedical and pharmaceutical application of collagen and gelatin from fish processing wastes.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations26
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Nutritional TherapeuticsSame topicCollagen: Extraction and CharacterizationFrench-language works237,207