Resistant Starches and Health
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It was initially hypothesized that resistant starches, i.e., starch that enters the colon, would have protective effects on chronic colonic diseases, including reduction of colon cancer risk and in the treatment of ulcerative colitis. Recent studies have confirmed the ability of resistant starch to increase fecal bulk, increase the molar ratio of butyrate in relation to other short-chain fatty acids, and dilute fecal bile acids. However the ability of resistant starch to reduce luminal concentrations of compounds that are damaging to the colonic mucosa, including fecal ammonia, phenols, and N-nitroso compounds, still requires clear demonstration. As such, the effectiveness of resistant starch in preventing or treating colonic diseases remains to be assessed. Nevertheless, there is a fraction of what has been termed resistant (RS1) starch, which enters the colon and acts as slowly digested or lente carbohydrate in the small intestine. Foods in this class are low glycemic index and have been shown to reduce the risk of chronic disease. They have been associated with systemic physiological effects such as reduced postprandial insulin levels and higher HDL cholesterol levels. Consumption of low glycemic index foods has been shown to be related to reductions in risk of coronary heart disease and Type 2 diabetes. Type 2 diabetes has in turn been related to a higher risk of colon cancer. If carbohydrates have a protective role in colon cancer prevention this may lie partly in the systemic effects of low glycemic index foods. The colonic advantages of different carbohydrates, varying in their glycemic index and resistant starch content, therefore, remain to be determined. However, as recent positive research findings continue to mount, there is reason for optimism over the possible health advantages of those resistant starches, which are slowly digested in the small intestine.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".