Probiotic orange <i>Bacillus</i> -infused jelly candies: development and effect on food borne, oral pathogen and commercial probiotics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This research presents a novel approach to develop pigmented probiotic jelly candies by incorporating an orange pigment-producing Bacillus 63-11 strain, encapsulated with surface maltodextrin (MDs) or internal coating maltodextrin (MDi) or sodium alginate (SA). The study evaluated the impact of different coating methods on probiotic activities, antagonistic effects, physical properties and consumer acceptance. Results indicated that coating methods did not compromise the probiotic and antagonistic properties of the Bacillus 63-11 strain. Over a 6-month period, all coating methods exhibited increased water activity with minimal microbiological changes. MD-coated candies demonstrated optimal probiotic viability, tolerance and sensory appeal, emphasising colour preferences. SA-coated candies exhibited lower viability but superior texture. This study demonstrated the successful development of an unconventional jelly candy prototype with implications for commercialisation. The findings underscore the pivotal role of coating material and method in influencing crucial aspects of the candy, offering valuable insights for the market potential of such innovative products.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".