Nutritional Value of Crisphead ‘Iceberg’ and Romaine Lettuces (Lactuca sativa L.)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Lettuce (<em>Lactuca sativa</em> L.) is one of the most popular vegetables worldwide, but is often viewed as low in nutritional value. However, lettuce contains health-promoting nutrients and biosynthesis of such phytochemicals varies depending on cultivar, leaf color and growing conditions. Studies of such parameters on the nutritional value have not been conclusive because the lettuce samples were collected from heterogeneous growing conditions and/or various developmental stages. In our study nutritional composition was evaluated in the two most popular lettuce types in Western diets, romaine and crisphead ‘Iceberg’, with red or green leaves grown under uniform cultivating conditions and harvested at the same developmental stage. In the investigated lettuce cultivars, insoluble fiber content was higher (<em>P </em>≤ 0.05) in romaine than crisphead lettuces. Alpha-linolenic acid (omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid) was the predominant fatty acid and was higher in romaine than crisphead. Iron and bone health-promoting minerals (Ca, Mg and Mn) were significantly higher (<em>P</em> ≤ 0.001) in romaine. The content of Beta-carotene and lutein in romaine (668.3 ug g<sup>-1</sup> dry weight) was ~45% higher than in crisphead (457.3 ug g<sup>-1</sup>dry weight). For leaf color comparison, red cultivars provided higher amount of minerals (Ca, P, Mn and K), total carotenoids, total anthocyanins and phenolics than green cultivars. Based on our study results, romaine was generally higher in nutrients analyzed, especially red romaine contained significantly higher amount of total carotenoids, total anthocyanins and phenolics. Therefore, romaine type lettuces with red rather than green leaves may offer a better nutritional choice.</p>
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it