Starch hydrolysis kinetics of intermediate wheatgrass (<i>Thinopyrum intermedium</i>) flour and its effects on the unit chain profile of its resistant starch fraction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and objectives Intermediate wheatgrass (IWG) is an environmentally sustainable perennial crop with potential food applications. This study investigated the starch hydrolysis kinetics of IWG grown in Roseau (IWG‐RS) and Rosemount (IWG‐RM), Minnesota, USA, and the molecular structure of their residual (resistant) starch after 2 hr hydrolysis. Hard red wheat (HRW) and Jasmine rice (JR) were compared to the IWG samples. Molecular size distribution and unit chain profiles of the RS fraction of raw starches after enzymatic hydrolysis were determined with gel permeation chromatography and high‐performance anion‐exchange chromatography, respectively. Findings Intermediate wheatgrass flour had significantly lower total starch, lower rapidly digestible starch, and higher lipid contents compared to JR and HRW. JR flour had the highest eGI (49.2), with IWG‐RM recording the lowest (40.6). Significant differences were observed in the glucan chain lengths of the RS fraction. JR had the shortest average chain length (DP = 4.75) compared to HRW (DP = 7.46), IWG‐RS (DP = 5.72), and IWG‐RM (DP = 4.85). Conclusions Intermediate wheatgrass flour had slower starch hydrolysis kinetics compared to JR and HRW flour. The RS fraction of the samples consisted mostly of short chains. The glucan chain length of IWG‐RS fraction was also significantly affected by location. Significance and novelty Intermediate wheatgrass could potentially be exploited for the preparation of foods with lower glycemic responses.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".