Effect of Various Hot‐Air Drying Processes on Clam <i>Ruditapes philippinarum</i> Lipids: Composition Changes and Oxidation Development
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clam Ruditapes philippinarum was processed by hot-air drying and the changes of its lipids were evaluated by analyzing lipid classes, phospholipid classes, fatty acids, as well as oxidation parameters including peroxide value (POV), thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances (TBARS) value, total oxidation value (TOTOX), and oxidation test (OXITEST). The hot-air drying process reduced the contents of triacylglycerol, phosphatidylcholine, and phosphatidylethanolamine, indicating the hydrolysis of lipids. Meanwhile, the hot-air drying process significantly decreased the proportion of n-6 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA), and consequently increased the PUFA ratio of n-3/n-6. Interestingly, the POV, TBARS and TOTOX decreased after the hot-air drying process. However, significant decline of the induction period for the dried clam tissue at elevated temperatures indicated their higher oxidation level, poor oxidative stability and reduction of shelf-life. Therefore, OXITEST method turned out to be an effective tool for estimating the level of lipid oxidation for hot-air dried clam.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".