MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137553353 · doi:10.1016/j.fct.2021.112207

β-Carotene oxidation products - Function and safety

2021· article· en· W3137553353 on OpenAlexaff
Graham W. Burton, Trevor J. Mogg, William W. Riley, James G. Nickerson

Bibliographic record

VenueFood and Chemical Toxicology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAntioxidant Activity and Oxidative Stress
Canadian institutionsWSP (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLivestockCaroteneFood scienceForageToxicologyMicronucleus testAcceptable daily intakeChemistryBiologyAnimal sciencePesticideToxicityAgronomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

β-Carotene oxidation products have newly discovered bioactivity in plants and animals. Synthetic fully oxidized β-carotene (OxBC) has application in supporting livestock health, with potential human applications. The safety of synthetic OxBC has been evaluated. An Ames test showed weak-to-moderate mutagenicity in only one cell line at high concentrations. A mouse micronucleus assay established a non-toxic dose of 1800 mg/kg body weight, and no bone marrow micronuclei were induced. Plant sources of β-carotene inevitably contain varying levels of natural OxBC. Vegetable powders and dried forages can be especially rich. Intakes of natural OxBC for humans and livestock alike have been estimated. The exposure range for humans (1-22 mg/serving) is comparable to the safe intake of β-carotene (<15 mg/d). In livestock, OxBC in alfalfa can contribute ~550-850 mg/head/d for dairy cattle but in forage-deficient poultry feed much less (~1 ppm). Livestock intake of supplemental synthetic OxBC is comparable to OxBC potentially available from traditional plant sources. Human intake of synthetic OxBC in meat from livestock fed OxBC is similar to a single serving of food made with carrot powder. It is concluded that consumption of synthetic OxBC at levels comparable to natural OxBC is safe for humans and animals.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.077
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations35
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood and Chemical ToxicologySame topicAntioxidant Activity and Oxidative StressFrench-language works237,207