Effect of Pea Flours with Different Particle Sizes on Antioxidant Activity in Pan Breads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulses are good sources of vitamins and minerals as well as antioxidants. Current literature supports a role for antioxidants in reducing oxidative damage associated with many health disorders, including cardiovascular disease and cancer. The effects of substitution of 10% (w/w) yellow whole or split pea flour (various particle sizes) in white wheat flour (Canadian Wheat Red Spring) on the phenolic and antioxidant activity of the leavened bread were examined. Antioxidant activity was evaluated with four assays, which included 1,1‐diphenyl‐2‐picrylhydrazyl (DPPH) radical scavenging, ferric reducing antioxidant power (FRAP), metal chelation (MC), and superoxide (SO) radical scavenging assays. The bread samples had reduced DPPH (5–11% scavenging activity) and MC (5–10% scavenging activity) values compared with their respective raw flours. Decreased activity in both the DPPH and MC assays can be attributed to a reduction in the antioxidant capacity in the bread samples owing to dilution with white wheat flour. The MC values for bread samples showed little variability between the yellow whole and split pea flours (8–10% scavenging activity for yellow whole and 9% for split pea flours), which suggests that the antioxidant activity of bread samples is not dramatically affected by the seed coats. Most pea fractions increased the FRAP scavenging activity and decreased the SO scavenging activity values for the bread samples compared with their respective raw flours. We conclude that thermal processing enhanced the antioxidant activity of the bread samples, limiting the dilution effect associated with flour addition during dough make‐up.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".