MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980720270 · doi:10.47339/ephj.2019.41

The effect of probiotics as a starter culture for producing yogurt

2019· article· en· W2980720270 on OpenAlexfundvenueno aff
SungHoo Jegal, Environmental Health BCIT School of Health Sciences, Helen Heacock, Aljoša Trmčić, Fred Shaw

Bibliographic record

VenueBCIT Environmental Public Health Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBritish Columbia Centre for Disease ControlBritish Columbia Institute of Technology
KeywordsStarterProbioticFood scienceFermentationInoculationBiologyChemistryBiotechnologyBacteria

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex


 Background: Many comprising studies showed that probiotics can manifest antimicrobial activity. Due to positive health effects of probiotics, they have been added in a fermentation of various foods to increase the nutrient content and to improve the quality of the foods. Furthermore, probiotics are used as a starter culture for several fermented foods like a yogurt. Probiotics may contain strains that are capable of initiating fermentation of the foods, however, a safety of the foods is not certain. Therefore, the study is done to analyze use of probiotics as a starter culture for a yogurt. Methods: The study was designed to analyze the pH pattern of three different yogurt groups (control, commercial starter culture, and probiotics). Each group had three samples that were made using Dairyland 2% milk and corresponding cultures. The control group samples were not inoculated with any culture. The commercial starter culture group samples were inoculated with Yogourtmet Freeze-Dried Starter and the probiotics group samples were inoculated with probiotic capsule, Jamieson 10 Billion Probiotic. The samples were incubated for 7 hours and every 45 minutes the pH was measured using Hanna Professional Portable Yogurt pH Meter. Results: The statistical analysis of the pH measurement showed significant different between the control groups and other two groups. The control group samples pH decreased a bit, but it was not enough to turn the samples to a yogurt. The pH pattern of the commercial group samples showed rapid decrease in pH after 180 minutes and the average pH of the last reading was 4.10. The pH of the probiotics group samples decreased linearly, and the average pH of the last reading was 4.58. Conclusions: The commercial starter culture and the probiotics group samples initiated fermentation and enough acidification occurred to decrease the pH below 4.6. With 7 hours of incubation period, the probiotics group samples just met the pH that makes the yogurt safe to consume. Therefore, the use of the probiotics as a starter culture for producing yogurt can be suggested with adequate incubation period.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.826
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBCIT Environmental Public Health JournalSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207