Evaluation of Simple and Inexpensive High‐Throughput Methods for Phytic Acid Determination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High‐throughput/low‐cost/low‐tech methods for phytic acid determination that are sufficiently accurate and reproducible would be of value in plant genetics, crop breeding and in the food and feed industries. Variants of two candidate methods, those described by Vaintraub and Lapteva (Anal Biochem 175:227–24, ; “VL” methods) and Huang and Lantzsch (J Sci Food Agric 34:1423–1426, ; “HL” methods), were evaluated. The primary concern with these methods is that, due to interference of matrix constituents including inorganic P, they can overestimate phytic acid and are ineffective at low levels of phytic acid. Twelve seed flours, representing lines of soybean, maize, barley and dry bean, containing a wide range of phytic acid levels, were analyzed by a minimum of eight cooperating laboratories using three variants of the VL method and two variants of the HL method. No method had consistently acceptable (˂2.0”) “Horwitz ratios”, a measure of reproducibility, although some treatments approached that. For example, one variant of the VL method when used to assay a soybean flour with a “standard” level of phytic acid had a Horwitz ratio of 2.15. Some variants of the VL method were adequate for analyses of cereal grains regardless of phytic acid level but none accurately measured phytic acid when at low levels in soybean flours. One variant of the HL method in which the 0.2 N HCl extraction media is modified to contain 10% Na2SO4, did accurately measure phytic acid levels in both cereal and legume flours regardless of endogenous phytic acid levels or matrix constituents.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".