Effects of juices enriched with xanthan and β-glucan on the glycemic response and satiety of healthy men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compared the effects of 3 palatable juices enriched with different polysaccharides with a control nonenriched juice on glucose and insulin responses as well as on appetite sensations and determined whether the polysaccharide-induced viscosity contributed to the effects of enriched juices on these variables. Using a randomized crossover design, 14 healthy male subjects consumed 4 juices: 3 juices were enriched with either xanthan gum, β-glucan, or a mix of xanthan gum and β-glucan, and the control juice had no added polysaccharides. Viscosity was measured at a shear rate of 30 s(-1), which represented an approximation of the viscosity in the gastrointestinal tract. One-sided tests were used in this study. Compared with the control juice, the juice supplemented with the mix of xanthan gum and β-glucan and the juice enriched with β-glucan alone led to a significant attenuation of the incremental peak of glucose (-0.8 mmol·L(-1), p = 0.001; and -0.5 mmol·L(-1), p = 0.03; respectively). However, no difference between juices was found for the incremental area under the curve for glucose, insulin, and appetite sensations. At 30 s(-1), only juices enriched with either the β-glucan/xanthan mixture or β-glucan alone yielded viscosity values higher than 0.1 Pa·s. These results highlight that the consumption of a palatable juice enriched with β-glucan alone or in mixture with xanthan gum reduces the glucose peak response compared with a juice with no added polysaccharides. The viscosity at a shear rate of 30 s(-1) seems to be linked to this effect.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".