Evaluation of The Potential of Amaranth Flour for Lactic Acid Fermentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although cereals and pseudocereals are deficient in some basic components, fermentation process is the most economical and simple way, how to improve nutritional value, functional qualities and sensory properties of the final products. In our study, we focused on the evaluation of amaranth flour for preparation of new probiotic functional foods suitable for celiac patients. That is why the growth dynamics of several Lactobacillus sp. in amaranth mashes were evaluated. All the monitored strains showed sufficient growth in mashes (growth rates of lactobacilli ranged from 0.73 to 1.52 h-1). Based on the rates, only Lb. rhamnosus VT1 was able to grow with the values higher than 1.38 h-1 in both milk and water based mashes.In the second part of our study, we described behaviour of Lb. rhamnosus GG in amaranth water- or milk- based mashes after 8 h of co-cultivation with Fresco DVS 1010 culture (37 ± 1 °C, 5 % CO2). Final counts after the fermentation reached values 108 CFU.ml-1 and no decrease was recorded during 2-week storage period at 6 ± 1 °C. Thus we may conclude that densities of lactobacilli were able to maintain above the limit of >106 CFU.ml-1 essential from the legislation point of view.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".