The Glycemic Response to Ingested Dreamfields Pasta Compared With Traditional Pasta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objective Dreamfields pasta is a modified commercially available pasta that is claimed to raise blood glucose much less than standard, unmodified pasta. Our objective was to quantify the blood glucose response to ingested Dreamfields pasta compared with an unmodified pasta. Research Design and Methods Using a blinded, randomized, crossover design, 20 subjects without diabetes ingested 50 g carbohydrate in the form of Dreamfields or traditional pasta at 8:00 AM after a 12- to 14-hour overnight fast. The preparation of both pastas was identical. Fingerstick blood glucose was measured before and at 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, and 180 minutes after ingestion of each pasta meal. Results The glucose response to ingestion of the 2 pasta products was essentially identical. Conclusion The 2 pastas tested had identical taste and mouth feel and resulted in nearly identical blood glucose responses in normal subjects. An eminent diabetologist takes a look at pastas that claim to be special in terms of glycemic index
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".