Impact of Processing on the Protein Quality of Pinto Bean (<i>Phaseolus vulgaris</i>) and Buckwheat (<i>Fagopyrum esculentum</i> Moench) Flours and Blends, As Determined by in Vitro and in Vivo Methodologies
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
Blending of protein sources can increase protein quality by compensating for limiting amino acids present in individual sources, whereas processing grain flours by extrusion or baking can also alter protein quality. To determine the effect of baking and extrusion on the protein quality of blended flours from buckwheat and pinto beans, a rodent bioassay was performed and compared to an in vitro method of protein quality determination. Overall, extruded products had higher protein efficiency ratio values, increased digestibility, and greater protein digestibility corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) values than baked products, with the extruded buckwheat/pinto blend having the greatest PDCAAS value of the experimental diets investigated. A correlation was found between both digestibility and PDCAAS values generated from in vitro and in vivo methods. The use of in vitro digestibility analysis should be investigated as a potential replacement for the current rodent assay for nutrient content claim purposes.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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 it