Reliability of a Simple Method for Determining Salt Taste Detection and Recognition Thresholds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of a rapid analytical method to determine salt taste detection and recognition thresholds based on the ASTM E679 method. Reliability was evaluated according to criterion of temporal stability with a 1-week interval test-retest, with 29 participants. Thresholds were assessed by using the 3-AFC technique with 15 ascending concentrations of salt solution (1-292 mM, 1.5-fold steps) and estimated by 2 approaches: individual (geometric means) and group (graphical) thresholds. The proportion of agreement between the test and retest results was estimated using intraclass coefficient correlations. The detection and recognition thresholds calculated by the geometric mean were 2.8 and 18.6mM at session 1 and 2.3 and 14.5mM at session 2 and according to the graphical approach, 2.7 and 18.6mM at session 1 and 1.7 and 16.3mM at session 2. The proportion of agreement between test and retest for the detection and recognition thresholds was 0.430 (95% CI: 0.080-0.680) and 0.660 (95% CI: 0.400-0.830). This fast and simple method to assess salt taste detection and recognition thresholds demonstrated satisfactory evidence of reliability and it could be useful for large population studies.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".