Encapsulation of conjugated linoleic acid and ruminant <i>trans</i> fatty acids to study the prevention of metabolic syndrome—a review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies have reported the potential benefits of consuming conjugated linoleic acid (CLA) and ruminant trans fatty acids (R-TFAs) in reducing the risk factors of metabolic syndrome (MetS). In addition, encapsulation of CLA and R-TFAs may improve their oral delivery and further decrease the risk factors of MetS. The objectives of this review were (1) to discuss the advantages of encapsulation; (2) to compare the materials and techniques used for encapsulating CLA and R-TFAs; and (3) to review the effects of encapsulated vs non-encapsulated CLA and R-TFAs on MetS risk factors. Examination of papers citing micro- and nano-encapsulation methods used in food sciences, as well as the effects of encapsulated vs non-encapsulated CLA and R-TFAs, was conducted using the PubMed database. A total of 84 papers were examined; of these, 18 studies were selected that contained information on the effects of encapsulated CLA and R-TFAs. The 18 studies that described encapsulation of CLA or R-TFAs indicated that micro- or nano-encapsulation processes stabilized CLA and prevented oxidation. CLA was mainly encapsulated using carbohydrates or proteins. So far, oil-in-water emulsification followed by spray-drying were the frequently used techniques for encapsulation of CLA. Further, 4 studies investigated the effects of encapsulated CLA on MetS risk factors compared with non-encapsulated CLA. A limited number of studies investigated the encapsulation of R-TFAs. The effects of encapsulated CLA or R-TFAs on the risk factors for MetS remain understudied; thus, additional studies comparing the effects of encapsulated and non-encapsulated CLA or R-TFAs are needed.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".