Effect of Processing on the <i>in Vitro</i> and <i>in Vivo</i> Protein Quality of Yellow and Green Split Peas (<i>Pisum sativum</i>)
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
In order to determine the effect of extrusion, baking, and cooking on the protein quality of yellow and green split peas, a rodent bioassay was conducted and compared to an in vitro method of protein quality determination. The Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score (PDCAAS) of green split peas (71.4%) was higher than that of yellow split peas (67.8%), on average. Similarly, the average Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS) of green split peas (69%) was higher than that of yellow split peas (67%). Cooked green pea flour had lower PDCAAS and DIAAS values (69.19% and 67%) than either extruded (73.61%, 70%) or baked (75.22%, 70%). Conversely, cooked yellow split peas had the highest PDCCAS value (69.19%), while extruded yellow split peas had the highest DIAAS value (67%). Interestingly, a strong correlation was found between in vivo and in vitro analysis of protein quality ( R 2 = 0.9745). This work highlights the differences between processing methods on pea protein quality and suggests that in vitro measurements of protein digestibility could be used as a surrogate for in vivo analysis.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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