MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4361269462 · doi:10.1080/10408398.2023.2190412

Mycotoxin risk management in maize gluten meal

2023· review· en· W4361269462 on OpenAlexaff
Jinghua Chang, Hao Luo, Lin Li, Junnan Zhang, Jagger Harvey, Yueju Zhao, Guangtao Zhang, Yang Liu

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMycotoxins in Agriculture and Food
Canadian institutionsMaRS
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMycotoxinContext (archaeology)Animal feedIngredientBiotechnologyFood scienceGlutenBusinessBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Maize gluten meal (MGM) is a by-product of maize starch and ethanol, produced by the wet milling process. Its high protein content makes it a preferred ingredient in feed. Given the high prevalence of mycotoxins in maize globally, they pose a significant challenge to use of MGM for feed: wet milling could concentrate certain mycotoxins in gluten components, and mycotoxin consumption affects animal health and can contaminate animal-source foods. To help confront this issue, this paper summarizes mycotoxin occurrence in maize, distribution during MGM production and mycotoxin risk management strategies for MGM through a comprehensive literature review. Available data emphasize the importance of mycotoxin control in MGM and the necessity of a systematic control approach, which includes: good agriculture practices (GAP) in the context of climate change, degradation of mycotoxin during MGM processing with SO2 and lactic acid bacteria (LAB) and the prospect of removing or detoxifying mycotoxins using emerging technologies. In the absence of mycotoxin contamination, MGM represents a safe and economically critical component of global animal feed. With a holistic risk assessment-based, seed-to-MGM-feed systematic approach to reducing and decontaminating mycotoxins in maize, costs and negative health impacts associated with MGM use in feed can be effectively reduced.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.249 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations16
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicMycotoxins in Agriculture and FoodFrench-language works237,207