You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
微生物学的定量法を用いた食品中ビタミン含量の分析における信頼性向上のための工夫―ロジスティックモデルを用いた検量線の作成―
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3358/shokueishi.59.141 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ippei Suzuki, Jun Takebayashi, Keizo Umegaki |
| Abstract |
Vitamins are essential nutrients for human beings. Therefore, accurate determination of vitamin levels in foodstuffs is vital to confirm the proper intake of vitamins. The microbiological assay (MBA), which is used worldwide for the determination of several vitamins in foodstuffs, is very sensitive and can determine ng/mL levels of vitamins. However, the correlation between vitamin concentrations in a sample solution and the plotted growth is usually shown as a sigmoid curve. Therefore, a calibration curve derived from a linear regression may lead to error. In this study, we evaluated the effects of various models (linear, quadratic, and cubic regression models and a four-parameter logistic model (4PLM)) for calibration curve construction on the determination of vitamin B6 in infant formula. Among the four models, the calibration curve constructed with 4PLM was the most reliable for vitamin B6 determination. Moreover, the calibration curve based on 4PLM showed robustness for extrapolation; even if the vitamin concentration in the sample solution deviated from the range of the standard solution, a reasonable result could be obtained. Similarly, the 4PLM calibration curve was the most reliable for niacin determination. We conclude that 4PLM should be used for calibration curve construction to improve the reliability of vitamin determination in foodstuffs using MBA. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 3 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 33% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 1 | 33% |
| Engineering | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 July 2018.
All research outputs
#20,663,600
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan
#366
of 521 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#266,755
of 342,237 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Shokuhin eiseigaku zasshi Journal of the Food Hygienic Society of Japan
#3
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 521 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 2nd percentile – i.e., 2% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 342,237 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 7 of them.