MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281632789 · doi:10.1111/1541-4337.12987

A comprehensive overview of emerging processing techniques and detection methods for seafood allergens

2022· review· en· W4281632789 on OpenAlexafffund
Xin Dong, Vijaya Raghavan

Bibliographic record

VenueComprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food Safety · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicIdentification and Quantification in Food
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaChina Scholarship Council
KeywordsFood allergensAllergenFood processingFish <Actinopterygii>ShrimpBiotechnologyFood allergyAllergyBusinessFood scienceEnvironmental healthBiologyMedicineFisheryImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Seafood is rich in nutrients and plays a significant role in human health. However, seafood allergy is a worldwide health issue by inducing adverse reactions ranging from mild to life-threatening in seafood-allergic individuals. Seafood consists of fish and shellfish, with the major allergens such as parvalbumin and tropomyosin, respectively. In the food industry, effective processing techniques are applied to seafood allergens to lower the allergenicity of seafood products. Also, sensitive and rapid allergen-detection methods are developed to identify and assess allergenic ingredients at varying times. This review paper provides an overview of recent advances in processing techniques (thermal, nonthermal, combined [hybrid] treatments) and main allergen-detection methods for seafood products. The article starts with the seafood consumption and classification, proceeding with the prevalence and symptoms of seafood allergy, followed by a description of biochemical characteristics of the major seafood allergens. As the topic is multidisciplinary in scope, it is intended to provide information for further research essential for food security and safety.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.225
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.234 · 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.

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

Citations34
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComprehensive Reviews in Food Science and Food SafetySame topicIdentification and Quantification in FoodFrench-language works237,207