Modification of appetite by bread consumption: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The inclusion of different ingredients or the use of different baking technologies may modify the satiety response to bread, and aid in the control of food intake. The aim of this study was to perform a systematic search of randomized clinical trials on the effect of bread consumption on appetite ratings in humans. The search equation was ("Bread"[MeSH]) AND ("Satiation"[MeSH] OR "Satiety response"[MeSH]), and the filter "clinical trials." As a result of this procedure, 37 publications were selected. The satiety response was considered as the primary outcome. The studies were classified as follows: breads differing in their flour composition, breads differing in ingredients other than flours, breads with added organic acids, or breads made using different baking technologies. In addition, we have revised the data related to the influence of bread on glycemic index, insulinemic index and postprandial gastrointestinal hormones responses. The inclusion of appropriate ingredients such as fiber, proteins, legumes, seaweeds and acids into breads and the use of specific technologies may result in the development of healthier breads that increase satiety and satiation, which may aid in the control of weight gain and benefit postprandial glycemia. However, more well-designed randomized control trials are required to reach final conclusions.
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 | 0.011 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".