MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3024178629 · doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12564

Plant carotenoids evolution during cultivation, postharvest storage, and food processing: A review

2020· review· en· W3024178629 on OpenAlexaff
Luxsika Ngamwonglumlert, Sakamon Devahastin, Naphaporn Chiewchan, Vijaya Raghavan

Bibliographic record

VenueComprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLight effects on plants
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersThailand Research Fund
KeywordsPostharvestCarotenoidFood processingFood scienceFood preservationFood storageEnvironmental scienceHorticultureBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Carotenoids in nature are predominantly C40 hydrocarbons that may contain oxygenated functional groups. Although they are well-recognized to exhibit key human health benefits, they cannot be synthesized in the human body and must be obtained from the diet. Fruit and vegetables are the primary dietary sources of carotenoids because plants automatically synthesize these compounds to protect cells from oxidative damage that may occur upon photosynthesis due to light. Biosynthesis and accumulation of carotenoids in plants begin during cultivation through postharvest storage. However, these compounds naturally degrade upon plant senescence and also during food processing (e.g., blanching, pasteurization, and drying). In this article, evolution of carotenoids during cultivation, postharvest storage, and food processing is comprehensively reviewed. Appropriate conditions and methods to cultivate, store, and process fruit and vegetables to help retard carotenoid degradation and enhance carotenoid biosynthesis are also reviewed and identified.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations83
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food SafetySame topicLight effects on plantsFrench-language works237,207