MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2835789746 · doi:10.1021/acs.jafc.8b02231

Effect of Emulsifier Concentration and Physical State on the In Vitro Digestion Behavior of Oil-in-Water Emulsions

2018· article· en· W2835789746 on OpenAlexafffund
Qing Guo, Nick Bellissimo, Dérick Rousseau

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProteins in Food Systems
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsChemistryDigestion (alchemy)Food scienceEmulsionIn vitroChromatographyOrganic chemistryBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The influence of emulsifier physical state and concentration on the in vitro digestion of oil-in-water (O/W) emulsions was investigated. Two citrated monoacylglycerols, glyceryl stearate citrate (GSC, bulk mp of 55-65 °C) and glyceryl oleate citrate (GOC, bulk mp of 0-10 °C), were used at 0.5 or 5 wt % of the emulsions to generate 20 wt % soybean oil O/W emulsions. Oil droplet lipolysis was slower in emulsions with 0.5 wt % emulsifier versus in those with 5 wt % emulsifier, resulting from the reduced surface-to-volume ratio in emulsions at 0.5 wt % emulsifier and the increased concentration of hydrolyzable groups at 5 wt % emulsifier. When excluding gastric digestion, all emulsions were similarly digested, confirming that emulsion intestinal digestion was highly dependent on gastric preprocessing. Finally, at a given emulsifier concentration, GSC-based emulsions with an interfacial crystalline shell experienced a decreased rate of intestinal lipid digestion compared with their GOC-based counterparts, confirming that emulsifier physical state played a role in lipid digestion.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.210 · 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 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

Citations21
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicProteins in Food SystemsFrench-language works237,207