Nutritional and Mineral Composition of Flax Sprouts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Flax (Linum usitatissimum) is a well-known economically viable crop with excellent nutritional qualities.The nutritional potential of flax seed sprouts has not been studied to date. Therefore, the current study was conducted to analyze nutritional qualities of sprouts of three flax cultivars (Rahab-94, Pembina and Linott) and to compare it with those of flax seeds. The results indicated lack of significance difference among the three cultivars for several traits. The sprouts were significantly different for protein with highest protein composition (25.2%) in Rahab-94. Sprouts were rich in glucose (5.1%) and fructose (2.6%) compared to sucrose (0.4%). Significant differences were observed for nitrogen (4.1%), calcium (0.27%), phosphorous (0.72%), zinc (51%), copper (23%) among sprouts of three cultivars. There were no significant differences for potassium (K), magnesium (Mg), boron (B), manganese (Mn), iron (Fe) and aluminum (Al) contents among the sprouts of three cultivars. Sprouts had higher protein content (22.3%) and lower crude fiber content (17%) as compared to that of seeds (21.7%, and 19.4%, respectively). Sprouts contained higher total sugars as compared to seeds (8.08% and 2.6%, respectively). The macronutrient and micronutrient compositions were comparatively high in seed and sprout respectively. The micronutrient values were relatively high in sprouts for boron (16.3%), iron (63.4%), manganese (52.9%) and zinc (44.4%). Flax sprouts were a good source of protein, crude fiber, simple sugars and essential micronutrients compared to flax seed and other crop sprouts.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".