MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400644572 · doi:10.1080/19440049.2024.2379388

Trends in acrylamide content in selected potato/sweet potato products on the Canadian market

2024· article· en· W4400644572 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Zakir Hossain, Tony S. N. Zhao, Adam Becalski, J.F. Schneider, S. Feng, Dorothea F.K. Rawn

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Additives & Contaminants Part A · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPotato Plant Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersHealth CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsFrench friesAcrylamideFood scienceChemistryToxicologyBiologyPolymer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Processed plant-based foods, particularly high carbohydrate-containing foods, are among the greatest contributors to dietary acrylamide, a probable human carcinogen, uptake. Between 2009 and 2020, five surveys were conducted to determine acrylamide in high carbohydrate-containing foods in Canada. These surveys included sampling of potato and sweet potato chips, French fries, and frozen potato/sweet potato products, as a follow-up to our earlier surveys from 2002 - 2008. Samples were analyzed using isotope dilution (13C3-acrylamide) with LC-MS/MS. The highest mean acrylamide levels were found in sweet potato chips. Among potato chips (57 to 4660 ng g−1), one brand consistently showed the highest concentrations with wide variability. Acrylamide concentrations decreased over time in ready-to-eat French fries (from 480 to 358 ng g−1), and one brand showed a clear reduction temporally. Wide variations were observed among brands, among lots/outlets of same brands, and among different food chains. Acrylamide levels in potato chips decreased between 2009 and 2016 (504.3 ng g−1) relative to the period 2002 - 2008 (1096.9 ng g−1). The acrylamide trends observed in the products measured in the latest study indicate that food producers may have adopted mitigation strategies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.843
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.207 · 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.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood Additives & Contaminants Part ASame topicPotato Plant ResearchFrench-language works237,207