MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2626173244 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v6n4p60

Chromatographic Methods for Coffee Analysis: A Review

2017· review· en· W2626173244 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Alexander Yashin, Yakov I. Yashin, Xiaoyan Xia, Boris Nemzer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCoffee research and impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryTheobromineAromaChromatographyBrewingCaffeineFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coffee has been one of the most commercialized food products and most widely researched beverage in the world for decades. It is considered a functional food, primarily due to its high content of compounds that exert antioxidant and other beneficial biological properties. This review summarized the data from analysis of coffee components, both volatile constituents and non-volatile high-molecular weight compounds performed by various chromatographic methods. A list of compounds identified by gas chromatography with mass spectrometry which define the aroma of coffee is provided. Publications on the measurement of methylxanthines (caffeine, theobromine, and theophylline), chlorogenic acids, diterpenes, sugars, amino acids, gamma-aminobutyric acid, dibasic acids, anions, and other compounds by HPLC and UHPLC-MS are reviewed. An overview of publications on the determination of organic contamination in coffee (PAHs, acrylamides, mycotoxins, etc.) and ways to reduce contamination through production technology and brewing methods are presented. Finally, an overview of the literature on authentication assessment for different grades of coffee grown in different regions is provided.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0060.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.005

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 head0.755
GPT teacher head0.730
Teacher spread0.025 · 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

Citations44
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicCoffee research and impactsFrench-language works237,207