MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388567744 · doi:10.1080/10408398.2023.2273448

Lipid emulsion structure, digestion behavior, physiology, and health: a scoping review and future directions

2023· review· en· W4388567744 on OpenAlexafffund
Erik S. Dassoff, Arshia Shireen, Amanda J. Wright

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiet and metabolism studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaArrell Food Institute, University of Guelph
KeywordsPostprandialEmulsionMedicineRisk analysis (engineering)Management scienceBiotechnologyBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research investigating the effects of the food matrix on health is needed to untangle many unresolved questions in nutritional science. Emulsion structure plays a fundamental role in this inquiry; however, the effects of oil-in-water emulsion structure on broad metabolic, physiological, and health-related outcomes have not been comprehensively reviewed. This systematic scoping review targets this gap and examines methodological considerations for the field of relating food structure and health. MEDLINE, Web of Science, and CAB Direct were searched from inception to December 2022, returning 3106 articles, 52 of which were eligible for inclusion. Many investigated emulsion lipid droplet size and/or gastric colloidal stability and their relation to postprandial weight-loss-related outcomes. The present review also identifies numerous novel relationships between emulsion structures and health-related outcomes. "Omics" endpoints present an exciting avenue for more comprehensive analysis in this area, yet interpretation remains difficult. Identifying valid surrogate biomarkers for long-term outcomes and disease risk will be a turning point for food structure research, leading to breakthroughs in the pace and utility of research that generates advancements in health. The review's findings and recommendations aim to support new hypotheses, future trial design, and evidence-based emulsion design for improved health and well-being.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0090.010
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.161
GPT teacher head0.468
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicDiet and metabolism studiesFrench-language works237,207