MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403151212 · doi:10.1186/s43014-024-00261-5

Microbial enzymes and major applications in the food industry: a concise review

2024· review· en· W4403151212 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Production Processing and Nutrition · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEnzyme Catalysis and Immobilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersChandigarh University
KeywordsFood industryBusinessBiotechnologyFood scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The use of enzymes in the production of food products is an ancient practice. Microbes provide several enzymes that are involved in improving the taste, texture, as well as aroma of food items, offering several benefits to the food industry. Subsequently, the ease of availability of these microbial enzymes has increased their utilization in the food industry. This cost-effectiveness and ease of commercial-scale production make enzymes ideal tools for various industrial uses. Microbial enzymes are utilized in processing food products such as those associated with the brewery, dairy and bakery industries. In addition, the nutritional value, color, aroma and texture of food products can be improved by using microbial enzymes. With the progress in technology, several novel enzymes in various applications of the food and beverages industry have been developed and demand is constantly increasing. The present review provides a comparative narrative of the applications of some of the predominating enzymes, such as phytases, lipases, lactases, pectinases, and laccases, commonly used as processing aids in the food industry. Graphical Abstract

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.959
Threshold uncertainty score0.674

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.308
Teacher spread0.280 · 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