Flavors' Decreasing Contribution to p-Anisidine Value Over Shelf Life May Invalidate the GOED Recommended Protocol for Flavored Fish Oils
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
American Oil Chemists’ Society (AOCS)’s Official Method Cd 18-90 for p-Anisidine Value (pAV) is commonly used to evaluate secondary oxidation in fish oils. Flavoring agents in fish oil products may interfere with pAV and lead to inaccurate results. The Global Organization for EPA and DHA (GOED) recommends a protocol for calculating pAV of flavored fish oils, based on the assumption that flavors’ contribution to the pAV does not change over the course of oxidation. The objective of this study was to test this assumption. All fourteen flavors evaluated increased the pAV when added to fresh fish oil; chocolate-vanilla and lemon flavors generated the largest increase. Under accelerated oxidation conditions, both chocolate-vanilla and lemon flavors had a similar effect; oxidized flavored fish oils had lower pAV than oxidized fish oils with newly added flavors. This was due to either an antioxidant effect of the flavor or degradation of the flavor during oxidation. Following the GOED recommendation, we would have underestimated the oxidation in the flavored oils. For this reason, pAV of flavored fish oils should be considered with caution and used in combination with other secondary oxidation markers when possible.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 it