Effect of Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) Supplementation on Probiotic Yoghurt: Physicochemical Properties, Microbial Content, and Sensory Attributes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) is a natural aromatic plant that belongs to the family of Lamiaceae. The rosemary plant has been utilized to preserve food due to its ability to prevent oxidation and microbial contamination. This study aimed to investigate the effect of fortifying yoghurt with rosemary extracts and probiotic bacteria (LAB) (Bifidobacterium longum ATCC15707 and two lactic acid bacteria, Streptococcus thermophilus and Lactobacillus delbrueckii subsp. bulgaricus) on its chemical composition, total phenolic compounds, antioxidant capacity, and sensory properties. The study results revealed significant differences in the total solids, protein, and ash content when rosemary concentration increased beyond 2%. However, there were no significant differences among the treatments in acidity and pH value. The sensory evaluation results indicated that the addition of aqueous extract of rosemary affected the sensory properties of yoghurt (flavour, body and texture, appearance, and overall grade), wherein an increasing concentration of rosemary extract increased score of flavour, body and texture, appearance, and overall grade. On the other hand, rosemary extract did not affect the sensory properties and chemical composition. To sum up, it can be stated that rosemary was used in the preparation of yoghurt with increased health benefits, acceptable sensory attributes, and the production of synbiotic yogurt.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".