MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3138170895 · doi:10.1080/10408398.2021.1895056

Mechanisms of deoxynivalenol (DON) degradation during different treatments: a review

2021· review· en· W3138170895 on OpenAlexaff
Ehsan Feizollahi, M. S. Roopesh

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDegradation (telecommunications)ToxicityChemistryFood scienceFood industryMycotoxinEnvironmental chemistryOzonolysisContaminationOrganic chemistryBiologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deoxynivalenol (DON) is one of the main trichothecenes, that causes health-related issues in humans and animals and imposes considerable financial loss to the food industry each year. Numerous treatments have been reported in the literature on the degradation of DON in food products. These treatments include thermal, chemical, biological/enzymatic, irradiation, light, ultrasound, ozone, and atmospheric cold plasma treatments. Each of these methods has different degradation efficacy and degrades DON by a distinct mechanism, which leads to various degradation byproducts with different toxicity. This manuscript focuses to review the degradation of DON by the aforementioned treatments, the chemical structure and toxicity of the byproducts, and the degradation pathway of DON. Based on the type of treatment, DON can be degraded to norDONs A-F, DON lactones, and ozonolysis products or transformed into de-epoxy deoxynivalenol, DON-3-glucoside, 3-acetyl-DON, 7-acetyl-DON, 15-acetyl-DON, 3-keto-DON, or 3-epi-DON. DON is a major problem for the grain industry and the studies focusing on DON degradation mechanisms could be helpful to select the best method and overcome the DON contamination in grains.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.580

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations101
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207