Differences in structures of starch hydrolysates using saliva from different individuals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract High salivary amylase activity is associated with improved glycemic homeostasis in humans. Therefore, high salivary amylase activity is associated with greater digestion of starch. However, it is unclear if the structures of the hydrolysates from different individuals with different salivary amylase activity are the same. To test this, cooked starch (1:2 starch/water ratio) was treated with saliva from six participants at equal activity and conditions mimicking oral digestion. Salivary amylase activities ranged from 470 × 103 to 118 × 103 U/mL among the participants. The composition of the hydrolysates was characterised by gel‐permeation chromatography. All samples gave rise to different and complex mixtures of hydrolysates with different breakdown structures. While saliva from participant 2 (high amylase activity) greatly reduced the high MW fraction, the saliva from participant 6 (low amylase activity) more extensively hydrolysed the starch to small MW fractions of oligosaccharides. These results show that different starch hydrolysates are produced during oral digestion by saliva from different individuals. Further research is therefore needed to understand if hydrolysate structure, rather than level of amylase activity, impacts glucose homeostasis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".