Teff-Based Complementary Foods Fortified with Soybean and Orange-Fleshed Sweet Potato
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The macronutrient composition of teff-based complementary foods (ComFs) prepared through extrusion cooking and a combination of household-level strategies were evaluated. In extrusion, teff, soybean and orange-fleshed sweet potato were separately processed into their respective flours and composited in a percentage ratio of 70:20:10, respectively. It was then extruded into a complementary food (ComF1). In the case of household-level methods, portions of teff grains separately germinated for 24 and 48 h were dried and ground to fine flours. Similarly, small portions of soybean grains were separately blanched and roasted; then each were ground to fine flour. Four ComFs (ComF2, ComF3, ComF4, ComF5) were developed by blending flours of ungerminated teff, germinated teff, blanched or roasted soybean and sweet potato using the 70:20:10 ratio. The extrusion cooked ComF had significantly (p < 0.05) high protein (17.92 g/100 g) while the household-level ComFs had lower protein contents. Energy content of the ComFs ranged from 391.63 to 400.60 kcal/100 g. All ComFs met the requirements of protein and energy for 6 to 8 month-old infants. There was no significant difference in the dietary fiber contents of the developed complementary foods despite increased values of insoluble dietary fiber due to germination of teff and blanching or roasting of soybean. The study revealed the potential of developing complementary foods from teff-soybean-sweet potato blends with improved protein and energy contents.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".