MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Development of Low Glycemic Index (GI) Foods by Incorporating Pulse Ingredients into Cereal‐ based Products: Use of <i>in vitro</i> screening and <i>in vivo</i> GI determination

2016· article· en· W2592543952 on OpenAlexaff
Natsuki Fujiwara, Clifford Hall, Alexandra L. Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsGlycemic Index Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFood scienceResistant starchGlycemic indexGlycemicStarchMealDietary fiberDietary fibreWheat flourPulse (music)ChemistryBiotechnologyBiologyInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pulses are environmentally sustainable, highly nutritional and energy efficient crops. Pulse ingredients (pea and lentil flour, pea protein concentrate and pea fiber) were incorporated into food products to develop low Glycemic Index (GI) products. Over 100 different products were formulated including pastas, breads, crackers, extruded snacks, cookies, cereal bars and muffins. Products were screened for estimated GI (eGI) using an in vitro method. Total starch and resistant starch content were also determined using an assay method. Based on the screening results, five products (pasta, bread, cracker, granola bar, and cookie) were selected for in vivo GI testing. For each control (containing 100 % wheat flour), a pulse variant (containing up to 50 % of pulse flour) was developed. 10 healthy subjects (5M, 5F; 36±14y, 23±4kg/m 2 ) tested each test meal (5 control and 5 pulse variant) in addition to 3 control dextrose meals on separate days and blood samples were collected over 2 hours. GI values of the control and pulse variant meals were 61.3±5.1 vs. 54.6±7.6 (pasta), 61.4±5.6 vs. 53.4±4.7 (focaccia bread), 46.0±4.2 vs. 41.5±3.1 (cracker), 35.4±3.6 vs. 34.8±5.0 (granola bar), and 41.6±3.8 vs. 37.6±3.0 (cookie). Mean GI difference between control and pulse variant was 4.8±2.6 with all pulse variant falling into the low GI category. The greatest reduction occurred in pasta and bread products containing 50% and 30% of lentil flour, respectively. Resistant starch was significantly higher in the pulse variant except granola bar where a mean of control and pulse variant were 0.42±0.096 and 0.79±0.23 ( p< 0.05), respectively. Palatability scores showed no significant difference between control and pulse variant. The data supports that substituting wheat flour with pulse ingredients reduces the GI value without changing palatability of the products.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.002

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicFood composition and properties→French-language works237,207→