Sterols and Stanols in Foods and Dietary Supplements Containing Added Phytosterols: A Collaborative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract An international, multilaboratory collaborative study was carried out to evaluate the performance of Official Method Ce 12‐16 of the American Oil Chemists’ Society (AOCS) for the determination of plant sterols and stanols, collectively referred to as phytosterols, in foods and dietary supplements containing added phytosterols and in the phytosterol food additive concentrates used to prepare such products. AOCS Official Method Ce 12‐16 involves the extraction of free sterols/stanols and saponified steryl/stanol esters followed by the gas chromatographic separation and flame ionization detection of phytosterol trimethylsilyl ether derivatives. A total of 14 laboratories from six countries successfully completed the analysis of collaborative samples of foods (e.g., baked goods, beverages, margarines; n = 9), dietary supplements (n = 5), and phytosterol concentrates (n = 4). Study results for the contents of total phytosterols (weight/weight) were 0.19–8.4% for foods, 8.7–49% for dietary supplements, and 57–97% for concentrates. AOCS Official Method Ce 12‐16 showed acceptable performance for total and individual phytosterols, indicating that this method was suitable for the determination of added phytosterols in a wide variety of market products and concentrates. AOCS Official Method Ce 12‐16 is appropriate for the determination of the five major phytosterols (i.e., campesterol, stigmasterol, β‐sitosterol, campestanol, and sitostanol) that are the subject of the United States Food and Drug Administration's health claim for phytosterols and the reduced risk of coronary heart disease.
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 | 0.025 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".