A SYSTEMATIC META-ANALYSIS OF AFLATOXIN B1 PRESENCE IN RED PEPPER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aflatoxins are one of the pollutants that can be isolated from the dried food products, especially spices. Since red pepper is one of the most consumed spices all over the world, this research aimed to estimate the prevalence and concen-tration of aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) in different red pepper spices with the help of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Therefore, the articles published between January 2000 and December 6, 2020, were systematically collected from four well-known databases. In this context, 10 articles containing 455 samples in total among 981 articles were included in the meta-analysis according to the determined inclusion and exclusion criteria. According to the analysis results, the AFB1 prevalence of all studies was determined as 50.8%. The lowest and highest AFB1 concentrations were observed in seasoning paprika Korea (0.14 mg/kg) and Turkey (31.13 mg/kg), respectively. The result of this meta-analysis can be used in the evaluation and organization of solution actions to be devel-oped to reduce AFB1 exposure and prevent financial losses through the con-sumption of red pepper spice products.
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 | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".