Acceptability of Pulse-Fortified Foods by Two Groups: Participants in a Clinical Trial and Participants in a Consumer Acceptability Panel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulses are nutrient-rich ingredients used as interventions in clinical trials to determine their effect on lowering blood lipids, which are risk factors for cardiovascular disease. Acceptability of these foods is critical for compliance by participants in clinical trials as well as regular consumption by those eating them for their health benefit. Commercialisation of foods that prove positive for health is required to make them available to the general population. Since the target for commercialisation would be products that will be procured by as many people as possible, the research question becomes whether or not testing is required by the clinical trial participants, by consumer acceptability testing in a sensory unit, or by both to ensure acceptability. The objective of this study was to determine the acceptability of pulse-based soups and casseroles destined for a clinical trial by both the participants in the clinical trial and by consumer participants not in the clinical trial. Neither group received any training regarding sensory analysis. Acceptability of aroma, appearance, flavor, texture, overall acceptability, and the frequency of eating the samples of five formulations fortified with either peas or beans was measured. Groups differed in their acceptability of foods for different attributes with the clinical trial participants providing less discrimination among the sensory attributes for their acceptability. Influential factors could include motivation for healthy eating, age, number of times the product was consumed, amount of the product consumed, and where it was consumed. In conclusion, acceptance measures from both groups are required in order to gain as much information as possible regarding acceptability of attributes for commercialisation of pulse-fortified foods that provide a health benefit.
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 | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".