MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010012857 · doi:10.1080/10408398.2011.610906

The Impact of Milling and Thermal Processing on Phenolic Compounds in Cereal Grains

2012· review· en· W2010012857 on OpenAlexaff
Sanaa Ragaee, Koushik Seetharaman, El‐Sayed M. Abdel‐Aal

Bibliographic record

VenueCritical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceAntioxidantHealth benefitsChemistryDietary fibreExtrusionExtrusion cookingFood processingFood productsDietary fiberWhole grainsMaterials scienceOrganic chemistryTraditional medicineMedicineMetallurgy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consumption of wholegrain foods has been recommended for healthy diets. The beneficial health properties of wholegrain products have been associated with the presence of higher amounts of dietary fiber and antioxidants and lower calories as compared to their respective refined ones. Phenolic compounds are mainly attributed to antioxidant properties of wholegrain foods. This review article provides a single comprehensive source that describes effects of milling and thermal processing on phenolic compounds and antioxidant properties in cereals. In general, milling and pearling processes affect the distribution of phenolic, compounds and thus antioxidant properties vary among the milling fractions. Thermal processes such as baking and extrusion could cause negative or positive effects on phenolic compounds and antioxidant properties of the end product subject to grain type and processing conditions. Thus factors that enhance health benefits of wholegrain cereal products have been discussed.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.154
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.264 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations157
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCritical Reviews in Food Science and NutritionSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207