Extrusion Processing of Amaranth and Quinoa into Gluten-Free Snack Foods for Celiac and Gluten-Free Diets
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Because of the growth of gluten intolerance and Celiac disease, there is growing interest in development of gluten-free foods. Beyond just being gluten-free, such foods can also have other positive nutritional benefits to human health. Extrusion processing is commonly used to produce a wide variety of human food products. Gluten-free grains can be a processing challenge, however, due to lack of proper binding, which can lead to poor quality food products. This research explores how extrusion parameters impacted the quality of amaranth- and quinoa-based extrudates. The specific objectives of this project included extruding each of the grains, then measuring extrudate properties, such as color, unit density, expansion ratio, and durability. Both the quinoa and amaranth were extruded as raw grain, as well as ground to 2mm and 1mm particle sizes. Other experimental conditions included moisture contents of 20% and 40% (d.b.), and extruder screw speeds of 50 rpm and 100 rpm. All treatments were successfully extruded, and all extrudates had high quality attributes, making this the first time either quinoa or amaranth was extruded without any binding ingredients. This study provides information useful for commercial scale-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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".