A comparative study of RSM and ANN models for predicting spray drying conditions for encapsulation of <i>Lactobacillus casei</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Objectives The aim of this study was to develop a wall material using pea protein isolate and pectin to optimize the encapsulation of Lactobacillus casei by spray drying. Response surface methodology (RSM) and artificial neural network (ANN) were used to analyze the effect of processing parameters. Findings The results showed that both RSM and ANN could be used to successfully characterize the experimental data, although ANN demonstrated greater predictive accuracy than RSM due to a higher R 2 and lower mean square error (MSE). Conclusion ANN was observed to show more suitability than RSM. The encapsulation efficiency (90.7%), yield (45.5%), and wettability (169 s) of spray‐dried probiotic powder obtained under optimal spray drying conditions (inlet air temperature (132°C); feed flow rate (9.5 mL/min) and pea protein isolate concentration (7.1%)) were observed to be not significantly different ( p < .05) from predicted values for all three parameters, demonstrating the validity of applied model. Significance and Novelty In this study, production technology of vegan base probiotic powder has been developed using mathematical modeling through the spray‐drying method. Therefore, this data can be useful for food processing industries to develop a high‐quality probiotic powder through spray drying.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".