MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2027558752 · doi:10.1094/cchem-07-10-0098

In Vitro Digestion of RS4‐Type Resistant Wheat and Potato Starches, and Fermentation of Indigestible Fractions

2010· article· en· W2027558752 on OpenAlexaff
Lilian U. Thompson, Clodualdo C. Maniñgat, Kyungsoo Woo, Paul A. Seib

Bibliographic record

VenueCereal Chemistry · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChemistryPropionateFood scienceStarchAmyloseFermentationResistant starchDigestion (alchemy)ButyratePotato starchPepsinBiochemistryChromatographyEnzyme

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT RS4‐type resistant wheat starch (RWS) and resistant potato starch (RPS) were subjected successively to in vitro digestion with pepsin and pancreatin‐bile, and the indigestible residues (82.1% db and 74.1% db, respectively) were recovered and subsequently fermented by in vitro techniques using fresh human fecal microbiota as inoculum. Scanning electron microscopy of the indigestible residues showed surface erosion on the residual granules. Total gas production during the in vitro fermentation increased almost linearly over time with the two resistant starches exhibiting similar gas production rates, as well as a similar rate of production of total short‐chain fatty acids (SCFA). The indigestible fractions from both starches produced acetate as the major SCFA and relatively higher levels of butyrate than propionate, but wheat starch tended to produce more butyrate over time than potato starch. Fractional molar ratios of acetate, propionate, and butyrate from the RWS and RPS were 0.586:0.186:0.228 and 0.577:0.200:0.223, respectively. The calculated caloric contributions of the RWS and RPS are ≈33% lower than for unmodified starch and are comparable to those reported in the literature for RS2 and RS3 high‐amylose maize starches.

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 score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.255

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations31
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCereal ChemistrySame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207