MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2465054536 · doi:10.1111/ijfs.13166

Impact of household food processing strategies on antinutrient (phytate, tannin and polyphenol) contents of chickpeas (<i><scp>C</scp>icer arietinum </i><scp>L</scp>.) and beans (<i><scp>P</scp>haseolus vulgaris </i><scp>L</scp>.): a review

2016· review· en· W2465054536 on OpenAlexaff
Hiwot Abebe Haileslassie, Carol J. Henry, Robert T. Tyler

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Food Science & Technology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPhytase and its Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAntinutrientTanninFood sciencePolyphenolGerminationPhytic acidBioavailabilityNutrientChemistryBiologyBotanyAntioxidantBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Pulses, which include beans and chickpeas, are major constituents of the human diet. They are important sources of energy and nutrients, particularly protein, folate and minerals. However, they also contain antinutrients which bind minerals, mainly iron and zinc, rendering them less bioavailable or unavailable for absorption. The levels of these antinutrients may be reduced by food processing techniques such as soaking and germination. Researchers have used these techniques in a number of studies; however, there is no consensus regarding the optimum processing conditions for reduction in the levels of these antinutrients. Thus, this review was conducted to describe the results of studies on soaking and germination of chickpeas and beans. A systematic search was carried out utilising Food Science and Technology Abstracts ( FSTA ) (1969 to present), Web of Science (1899 to present) and Scopus (1823 to present). A total of thirty‐three articles were reviewed. Both soaking and germination resulted in significant but variable degrees of reduction in levels of antinutrients in most studies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations32
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Food Science & TechnologySame topicPhytase and its ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207