Cote d’Ivoire Blighia Sapida Aril Oil Composition and Efficacy on Rat’s compared with Palm Oil and Olive Oil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to determine and analyze the composition of Blighia sapida aril oil from Côte d’Ivoire and to compare its effects in diet to that of refined palm oil and olive oil.A quantity of dried Blighia sapida arils was ground to fine powder. Oil extracted from the powder was filtered and characterized. After that, three experimental diets differed by the type of oil which were mixed with the food (Blighia sapida aril oil or refined palm oil or olive oil) were prepared. Three groups of young rats (six per group) were fed ad libitum with the different diets during 28 days. At the end of the experimentation, food intake, body weight and alimentary efficacy coefficient were measured and compared.Chemicals analyze of the oil showed that it is oleic/palmitic/stearic oil. It contains low polyunsaturated fatty acids. The ratio of n-6/n-3 is 9.50 and the ratio unsaturated fatty acid/saturated fatty acid is 1.6. Food intake of the different group of rats was not significantly different (p>0.05) whatever the kind of oil in the diet. Body weight and alimentary efficacy coefficient obtained on rats fed with diet containing Blighia sapida aril oil were not significantly different (p>0.05) to that of rat’s which consumed diet containing palm oil.However, body weight and alimentary efficacy coefficient in case of olive oil consumption were high (p<0.05) than those obtained with consumption of Blighia sapida aril oil or palm oil.Blighia sapida aril oil and refined palm oil have practically the same nutritional value in alimentation while olive oil has more nutritional value.Refined Blighia sapida aril oil can enhance it nutritional value.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".