Fermentability of Oat and Wheat Fractions Enriched in β‐Glucan Using Human Fecal Inoculation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Fermentation by human fecal bacteria of fractions of wheat bran prepared by preprocessing technology were examined and compared with a β‐glucan‐rich oat bran and a purified β‐glucan (OG). The wheat fractions were essentially a beeswing bran (WBA), mainly insoluble dietary fiber, and an aleurone‐rich fraction (WBB) containing more soluble fiber and some β‐glucan (2.7%). The oat bran (OB) had more endosperm and was very rich in β‐glucan (21.8%). Predigestion of WBB and OB to mimic the upper gastrointestinal (GI) tract gave digested wheat bran fraction B (WBBD) and digested oat bran (OBD), respectively. These predigested fractions were fermented in a batch technique using fresh human feces under anaerobic conditions. Changes in pH, total gas and hydrogen production, short chain fatty acids (SCFA), and both soluble and insoluble β‐glucan and other polysaccharide components, as determined from analysis of monosaccharide residues, were monitored. Fractions showed increasing fermentation in the order WBA < WBBD < OBD < OG. Variations in SCFA production indicated that microbial growth and metabolism were different for each substrate. Polysaccharide present in the supernatant of the digests had disappeared after 4 hr of fermentation. Fermentability of oat and wheat β‐glucan reflected solubility differences, and both sources of β‐glucan were completely fermented in 24 hr. Although the overall patterns of fermentation indicated the relative amounts of soluble and insoluble fiber, the anatomical origin of the tissues played a major role, presumably related to the degree of lignification and other association with noncarbohydrate components.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".