MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4376873058 · doi:10.1080/10408398.2023.2211671

Contribution of intramuscular connective tissue and its structural components on meat tenderness-revisited: a review

2023· review· en· W4376873058 on OpenAlexaff
Bimol C. Roy, Heather L. Bruce

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMeat and Animal Product Quality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTendernessConnective tissueIntramuscular fatMedicineAnatomyFood sciencePathologyBiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The tenderness of meat influences consumers' perceptions of its quality. Meat tenderness is a key quality characteristic that influences consumer satisfaction, repeat purchases, and willingness to pay higher prices for meat. Muscle fibers, connective tissues, and adipocytes are the main structural components of meat that contribute to its tenderness and texture. In the present review, we have focused on the role of connective tissue and its components in meat tenderness, specifically perimysial intramuscular connective tissue (IMCT) and its concept as an immutable "background toughness." The collagen contribution to cooked meat toughness can be altered by animal diet, compensatory growth, slaughter age, aging, and cooking. As well, progressive thickening of the perimysium leads to a progressive increase in shear force values in beef, pork, chicken, and this may occur prior to adipocyte formation as cattle finish in feedlots. Conversely, adipocyte accumulation in the perimysium can decrease cooked meat shear force, suggesting that the contribution of IMCT to meat toughness is complex and driven by both collagen structure and content. This review provides a theoretical foundation of information to modify IMCT components to improve meat tenderness.

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)0.007
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 score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.806

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.175
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations63
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicMeat and Animal Product QualityFrench-language works237,207