MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2794201927 · doi:10.1111/1750-3841.14066

Sensory Acceptability of Iron‐Fortified Red Lentil ( <i>Lens culinaris</i> Medik.) Dal

2018· article· en· W2794201927 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Rajib Podder, Shaan M. Khan, Bunyamin Tar’an, Robert T. Tyler, Chowdhury Jalal, P.J. Shand, Albert Vandenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
Canadian institutionsNutrition InternationalCanadian Nutrition SocietyUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersGrand Challenges CanadaMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsFortificationFood scienceTasteOdorChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O at fortificant Fe concentrations of 800, 1,600 (both cooked and uncooked), or 2,800 ppm. Appearance, odor, and overall acceptability of cooked and uncooked samples were rated using a 9-point hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely to 9 = like extremely). Taste and texture were rated for the cooked samples prepared as typical south Asian lentil meals. Significant differences in sensory quality were observed among all uncooked and cooked samples at both locations. Overall, scores for all sensory attributes and acceptability of uncooked lentil decreased with increasing concentration of Fe in the fortificant; however, Fe fortification (particularly with NaFeEDTA) had small effects on acceptability. Panelists from Saskatoon provided a wider range of scores than those from Bangladesh for all attributes of cooked lentil. Overall, sensory evaluation of Fe fortification using NaFeEDTA minimally affected consumer perception of color, taste, texture, odor, and overall acceptability of cooked lentil. Reliability estimates (Cronbach's alpha [CA]) indicated that consumer scores were generally consistent for all attributes of all lentil samples (mean CA > 0.80). NaFeEDTA was found to be the most suitable Fe fortificant for lentil based on consumer acceptability. Consumption of 45 to 50 g of NaFeEDTA-fortified lentil (fortificant Fe concentration of 1,600 ppm) per day meets the estimated average requirements (EARs) of Fe for humans (10.8 to 29.4 mg). PRACTICAL APPLICATION: Iron fortification of dehulled lentil dal may change organoleptic attributes that can influence consumer acceptability. Sensory evaluation by consumers helps to determine the effect on appearance, odor, taste, texture, and overall acceptability of fortified lentils. In this study, consumer acceptability was evaluated with panelists who consume lentil regularly. Panelists provided significantly different scores for 5 sensory attributes for 10 uncooked and 3 cooked lentil samples. Panelists reliably preferred NaFeEDTA as the most suitable Fe fortificant for dehulled lentils for 5 attributes. Overall, lentil dal fortified with NaFeEDTA can offer a simple and low-cost solution to human health problems associated with iron-related malnutrition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations15
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ScienceSame topicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and EffectsFrench-language works237,207