Effect of Micronutrient Powder Addition on Sensory Properties of Foods for Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Micronutrient fortification can improve nutrient intake of older adults in long-term care. However, previous studies indicate that micronutrient fortification can alter food sensory attributes and, potentially, consumer liking. Others have found no effect of fortification on liking. This research investigates the effect of micronutrient powder addition on the sensory properties of selected foods commonly served in long-term care. A micronutrient powder containing 9 vitamins and 3 minerals was added to tomato soup and oatmeal at different levels. Using projective mapping, changes in sensory properties were observed with powder addition. Descriptive analysis, used to quantify these changes, showed that both the tomato soup and oatmeal had reduced flavor as the amount of added micronutrient powder increased. Oatmeal also showed changes in texture with fortification. Consumer liking scores for tomato soup showed that micronutrient addition affected liking when 100% of a daily dose was added into the soup. Addition of 50% of the daily dose did not affect liking. Oatmeal liking did not differ between fortified and unfortified samples. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Results from this research can be used to decide whether a micronutrient powder of selected vitamins and minerals can be added to foods served to older adults in long-term care. Although sensory properties of the foods will be altered, fortification of both tomato soup and oatmeal with the developed powder is possible without reducing consumer liking to the point where it is disliked.
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 | 0.001 | 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".