MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Daily Chickpea and Oligosaccharide Consumption on Gastrointestinal Symptoms

2009· article· en· W2285766561 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Wendy J. Dahl, Gordon A. Zello, Robert T. Tyler, Andrew Van Kessel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSaskatchewan Pulse Growers
KeywordsFlatulenceRaffinoseBloatingDiarrheaMedicineGastroenterologyAbdominal painInternal medicineLoperamideAnimal scienceFood scienceChemistryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Galactosides (e.g. raffinose) in pulses, such as chickpeas (CP), are generally thought to be gas forming, contributing to unpleasant gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. In this study, we determined the effects CP, added to soups and desserts, or raffinose (R) consumption on GI symptoms. Healthy adults (n=12) consumed a control diet (C), C plus 5 g R, and C plus 200 g of canned CP (11 g fibre) per day, in random order, each for 3 weeks. Macronutrient provision was similar for all diets. GI symptoms were recorded daily. No significant differences in bowel movements were found (C: 1.5±0.7; R: 1.7±0.7; CP: 1.7±0.8 stools/d). Flatulence was greater on the CP diet (C: 0.41±0.38; R: 0.42±0.38; CP: 0.61±0.42 /d; p=0.04), but no differences were found for bloating or abdominal pain (p>0.05). No diarrhea was noted. Most participants experienced no appreciable symptoms with CP or R, which provided approximately ten times the galactosides of CP. Excellent compliance was evident across diets. Therefore, avoidance of pulses because of GI effects may be unnecessary. The galactosides present in canned CP are too low to contribute significantly to the flatulence noted in this study. The direct addition of CP to foods offers a practical, economical and acceptable way of meeting recommendations for fibre and pulse consumption. (Supported by Saskatchewan Pulse Growers and Pulse Canada)

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.231 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicFood composition and properties→French-language works237,207→