MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3156779529 · doi:10.3390/fermentation7020063

Enhancing Micronutrients Bioavailability through Fermentation of Plant-Based Foods: A Concise Review

2021· review· en· W3156779529 on OpenAlexaff
Mrinal Samtiya, Rotimi E. Aluko, Anil Kumar Puniya, Tejpal Dhewa

Bibliographic record

VenueFermentation · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytase and its Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersScience and Engineering Research BoardDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsBioavailabilityMicronutrientNutrientFood scienceEssential nutrientBiofortificationChemistryFermentationManganeseBiotechnologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Plant-based foods are rich sources of vitamins and essential micronutrients. For the proper functioning of the human body and their crucial role, trace minerals (iron, zinc, magnesium, manganese, etc.) are required in appropriate amounts. Cereals and pulses are the chief sources of these trace minerals. Despite these minerals, adequate consumption of plant foods cannot fulfill the human body’s total nutrient requirement. Plant foods also contain ample amounts of anti-nutritional factors such as phytate, tannins, phenols, oxalates, etc. These factors can compromise the bioavailability of several essential micronutrients in plant foods. However, literature reports show that fermentation and related processing methods can improve nutrient and mineral bioavailability of plant foods. In this review, studies related to fermentation methods that can be used to improve micronutrient bioavailability in plant foods are discussed.

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 score0.004
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.265 · 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

Citations188
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFermentationSame topicPhytase and its ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207