Comparison of Germination-Parboiling, Freeze-Thaw Cycle and High Pressure Processing on Phytochemical Content and Antioxidant Activity in Brown Rice Evaluated after Cooking and In-Vitro Digestion
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Three treatments, namely germination-parboiling (PG), freeze-thaw cycle (FTC) and high pressure processing (HPP) were compared for phytochemical content and antioxidant activity of brown rice (BR). These were determined in raw (uncooked), cooked, and in-vitro digested BR and compared with those from untreated BR and white rice (WR). PG showed the highest retention of phytochemicals after cooking (87–100%) while it dropped to 59–72% with FTC and 64–76% with HPP. After in-vitro digestion, the highest amount of phenolics was found in PG-24 h and flavonoids in FTC for two cycles. The antioxidant activity, as determined by oxygen radical absorbance capacity and ABTS methods, showed the highest value to be associated with in-vitro digested sample of PG-24 h, and lowest in WR. The results of this study show that these three treatments could improve or retain the phenolic content and antioxidant activity in cooked BR after in-vitro digestion.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".