MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2968629711 · doi:10.5539/jfr.v8n5p59

Trace Elements in Gluten-free Pastas and Flours from Markets Located in the Las Vegas, Nevada Area

2019· article· en· W2968629711 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Christopher J. Collumb, Adam A. Delelegn, Giavanna M. Fernandez, Amanda C. Hudson, Kendra W. Kimberley, Douglas B. Sims, Douglas J. Walton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHeavy Metal Exposure and Toxicity
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical SciencesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsGlutenGluten freeFood scienceCadmiumChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The popularity of gluten-free foods has been increasing across the United States and abroad. A significant reason for this trend involves marketing efforts targeted towards individuals seeking to avoid the consequences of celiac disease or a perceived gluten intolerance. Many gluten-free food products originate in regions of the world where irrigation with metal-contaminated waters is common. Calcium, Fe, Mg, Ti and Zn were detected at various levels across all foods products. Cadmium was detected in 96.8% of U.S. and 54.5% of Asian gluten-free foods with gluten containing foods above reported averages (216 µg kg−1 Cd); as was Co (140µg kg−1) in 48.4 % of U.S., 72.7% of Asian gluten-free foods, and 40% of the gluten containing foods; Cr was in 54.8% of the U.S., 72.5% of Asian gluten-free foods, and 100% of gluten containing food products; while Ca, Fe, Mg, Ti and Zn were greater than 10,000 µg kg−1 with Ba, Cd, Co, Mo, and Ni above reported averages. Finally, trace metals were more commonly detected in the gluten containing foods overall. It was found that trace elements were more commonly found in the gluten containing products; however, none of the higher than expected levels pose a significant health risk to consumers.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.732

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.306
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Food ResearchSame topicHeavy Metal Exposure and ToxicityFrench-language works237,207