Development and characterization of protein-rich mixed-protein soft foods for the elderly with swallowing difficulties
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Protein-rich custards were developed for elderly individuals with dysphagia by combining soy protein isolate (SPI) and milk protein concentrate (MPC), with and without transglutaminase (TG). The formulations were designed to resemble the texture, rheology, and swallowability of MPC-only custard. Custards with 1:1 and 1:2 SPI-to-MPC ratios, both with and without 0.2 % TG, were evaluated against MPC-only and SPI-only custards as benchmarks. Without TG, mixed-protein custards exhibited lower viscosity, hardness, gumminess, chewiness, and stability due to molecular incompatibility disrupting the protein networks. TG addition significantly enhanced gel strength and water-holding capacity in mixed formulations. The SPI-MPC (1:2) custard with 0.2 % TG showed optimal performance and met Level 6 IDDSI standards. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) revealed that nanoscale protein-protein interactions were critical in stabilizing the gel network. These findings support the development of high-protein, custard-style soft foods using blended dairy and plant proteins to improve nutrition and swallowing safety for the elderly.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".