MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2948125622 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v8n4p37

Influence of Oryzanols Concentrate on the Oxidation of Methyl Ester Linoleic Acid and Study of Their Oxidation Products

2019· article· en· W2948125622 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bruno Irigaray, Iván Jachmanián, Marı́a A. Grompone

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicEdible Oils Quality and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryLinoleic acidAntioxidantSunflower oilRice bran oilOrganic chemistryFood scienceLipid oxidationSunflowerBranFatty acid

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Oryzanols are frequently found in rice bran oil but almost completely removed in the neutralization step when the oil is chemically refined. In this way, oryzanols can be recovered from the soapstocks to generate a concentrate. Thereby, they could be used as antioxidants in lipids for specific purposes. In the present work the antioxidant power of oryzanols concentrate (33% purity) was studied together with pure oryzanols and butylhydroxytoulene (BHT). Methyl esters were prepared from regular sunflower oil without antioxidants to which the antioxidants before mentioned were added in an effective concentration of 3x10-3 M. The samples were oxidized in a heating block with oxygen flow and the hydroperoxides of linoleic acid methyl ester were analyzed. It was observed that all antioxidants were able to protect the sunflower oil methyl esters from oxidation with respect to methyl esters without antioxidants. Oryzanols presented a notoriously lower protection ability compared to BHT. However, the formation of the linoleic acid methyl ester hydroperoxides and their proportion, for the same oxidation stage, did not show differences between the antioxidants used. Therefore, the oxidation kinetics were similar between the different antioxidants studied.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.193

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicEdible Oils Quality and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207