A prebiotic matrix for encapsulation of probiotics: physicochemical and microbiological study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This work aims to develop an encapsulated oral-synbiotic supplement by studying the effect of adding inulin in alginate beads and observing its ability to protect three probiotic strains: Pediocucus acidilactici, Lactobacillus reuteri and Lactobacillus salivarius. Beads of different inulin concentrations 0%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% (w/v) in 2% (w/v) alginate solution were prepared by the extrusion/ionotropic gelation method. Polymer distribution within beads was characterised using confocal laser scanning microscopy. Interactions between alginate and inulin were monitored by Fourier transform infra-red spectroscopy (FTIR). Effect of encapsulation on viability, antimicrobial ability, acid tolerance and bile tolerance of probiotic strains were investigated. Antimicrobial and probiotic properties of bacterial strains were not affected by encapsulation. Bacterial protection against acidity was increased by adding inulin. Beads with 5% w/v inulin were the most effective in bacterial protection against bile-salts. To our knowledge, this work is the first to use such high concentrations of inulin.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".