Assessing the Fatty Acid, Carotenoid, and Tocopherol Compositions of Amaranth and Quinoa Seeds Grown in Ontario and Their Overall Contribution to Nutritional Quality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various fatty acids, tocopherols, carotenoids, and their respective antioxidant contributions in 7 amaranth seed and 11 quinoa seed samples along with a new evaluation method are reported. The lipid yield was 6.98-7.22% in amaranth seeds and 6.03-6.74% in quinoa seeds, with unsaturated fatty acids (UFAs) being the predominant fatty acids, 71.58-72.44% in amaranth seeds and 81.44-84.49% in quinoa seeds, respectively. Carotenoids, mainly lutein and zeaxanthin, are confirmed for the first time in amaranth seeds, while β-carotene is reported first in quinoa seeds. The predominant tocopherols in amaranth seeds are δ- and α-tocopherol, whereas γ- and α-tocopherol are the primary tocopherols in quinoa seeds. UFAs, carotenoids, and tocopherols showed good correlation with antioxidant activity. All of the amaranth seeds demonstrated lower overall lipophilic quality than quinoa seeds, with the AS1 and QS10 cultivars providing the highest scores for amaranth and quinoa seeds, respectively. Results from this study will contribute to developing quinoa seeds and related functional foods with increased benefits.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".