MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2040364793 · doi:10.1021/jf0015017

Glycemic Response to a Food Starch Esterified by 1-Octenyl Succinic Anhydride in Humans

2001· article· en· W2040364793 on OpenAlexaff
Bryan W. Wolf, Thomas M.S. Wolever, Claudia Bolognesi, Bradley A. Zinker, Keith A. Garleb, J.L. Firkins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsGlycemic Index Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostprandialGlycemicInternal medicineCrossover studyStarchEndocrinologyFlatulenceArea under the curveMedicineChemistrySuccinic anhydrideInsulinFood sciencePlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To evaluate the glycemic response to a food starch esterified by 1-octenyl succinic anhydride (OSA), 30 healthy nondiabetic adult subjects were studied in a double-blind crossover design. After an overnight fast, subjects consumed a product containing either 25 g of glucose or 25 g of OSA-substituted starch. Finger-prick capillary blood was obtained at baseline and 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 min postprandial for glucose measurement. After OSA treatment, the rise in blood glucose was reduced (P < 0.05) at 15 and 30 min and tended (P < 0.08) to be lower at 45 min. Mean peak rise in glucose was reduced 19% (P < 0.01) by OSA (3.30 +/- 0.19 versus 2.66 +/- 0.16 mmol/L) compared to glucose, but time to peak did not differ between treatments. Net incremental area under the curve was also lower (P < 0.05) on OSA compared to glucose. Minimal effects on gastrointestinal symptoms (intensity and frequency of nausea, cramping, distention, and flatulence) were noted for both products, with no clinically significant difference between products. In conclusion, starch substitution with OSA attenuated the postprandial glycemic excursion compared to an equivalent glucose challenge and was well tolerated by fasting healthy adult subjects.

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 score0.163
Threshold uncertainty score0.440

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations51
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural and Food ChemistrySame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207