MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1499196452 · doi:10.1002/jsfa.6146

Physical properties and enzyme susceptibility of rice and high‐amylose maize starch mixtures

2013· article· en· W1499196452 on OpenAlexaff
Fan Zhu, Sunan Wang, Ya‐Jane Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmyloseStarchRetrogradation (starch)Food scienceResistant starchRheologyAmylaseChemistryDynamic modulusDynamic mechanical analysisMaize starchMaterials scienceBiochemistryEnzymeOrganic chemistryPolymerComposite material

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Resistant starch has promising health benefits and possesses great potential as a functional ingredient in diverse food formulation and production. Here, 10-50% high-amylose maize starch with 70% amylose content (H7) representing type 2 resistant starch was incorporated into three types of rice starch with varying amylose content (1.6-32%). Thermal properties, rheology, and enzyme susceptibility to porcine pancreatic α-amylase of the starch mixtures were analyzed. RESULTS: Addition of H7 at levels of 10-50% decreased the yield stress and consistency coefficient of rice starches for the flow properties as modeled by the Herschel-Bulkley equation. Dynamic rheological analysis showed that addition of H7 decreased the storage modulus during heating and increased it during cooling and frequency sweeping for all rice starches tested. Gelatinization, retrogradation, and enzyme susceptibility of the resulting mixtures appeared additive of that of individual components. CONCLUSION: A desirable reduction in the digestibility of starchy foods could be achieved by adding high-amylose maize starch. The physical modifications in properties of the starch blends are dependent on the addition level of resistant starch.

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 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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.299

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 studies0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.205 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations17
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Science of Food and AgricultureSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207