MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7046692526

Digestive Fate of Ultra-Processed Foods: From Bolus to Stool

2023· dissertation· en· W7046692526 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Atrium (University of Guelph) · 2023
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicSuperconducting and THz Device Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigestion (alchemy)FermentationBolus (digestion)Fatty acidPostprandialClostridiumStarchAssimilation (phonology)Functional food
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) formulated from highly refined ingredients are not simply a sum of their macronutrients; composition alone cannot explain the association between high UPFs intake and increased malnutrition risks (i.e., obesity, metabolic syndrome). A knowledge gap exists in understanding the role of food structure on lipid digestion and colonic fermentation of formulated foods compared to the whole food they seek to emulate. Ultra-processed, plant-based burgers (PB) and traditional comminuted-beef burgers (BB) share similar organoleptic and most physicochemical properties, but PB does not contain intact whole food structures, while BB entraps lipids throughout their myofibrillar protein network. The markedly different food structures result in significantly higher free fatty acid (FFA) bioaccessibility for PB (28.2 ± 4.80%) than BB (8.73 ± 0.52%) during simulated in-vitro digestion using the TIM Gastrointestinal Model-1 (TIM-1). Linear discriminant analysis effect size (LEfSe) shows supplement fed with PB enriched Clostridium and Citrobacter during colon fermentation using the Simulated Human Intestinal Microbial Ecosystem (SHIME), whereas BB differentially increased Megasphaera, Bacteroides, Alistipes, and Blautia at the genus level. PB produced more short-chain fatty acids (SCFA) than BB in the ascending and descending colon but less in the transverse colon (p < 0.05). The second experiment compared sliced to formulated fried potato chips containing similar macronutrient profiles but divergent physical structures. Sliced chips preserve the intact cellular structure, while reformulated chips comprise a starch matrix with minimal remaining cell integrity. The total cumulative FFA bioaccessibility during TIM-1 digestion presents no significant difference between the two chips (p > 0.05). However, the absolute FFA bioaccessibility of sliced chips steadily increases after 180 min of digestion due to food matrix erosion continually exposing triacylglycerols, whereas the matrix of reformulated chips results in rapid dispersion of triacylglycerols causing FFA hydrolysis to peak at ~240-300 min. To conclude, formulated UPFs (e.g., PB, formulated chips) lack the whole food structure in processed foods (e.g., BB, sliced chips), leading to a higher rate and extent of FFA release and affecting the gut microbial composition and metabolism site-specially. This research furthers understanding of how food structure may regulate lipemic response and gut microbiota performance.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Atrium (University of Guelph)Same topicSuperconducting and THz Device TechnologyFrench-language works237,207