Effect of Soy Concentrate, Oat (Avena sativa) Flour and Chia Seeds (Salvia hispanica) as a Partial Substitute of Wheat Flour (Triticum aestivum) on Protein Content, Dietary Fiber Content, Textural Shelf Life and Organoleptic Properties of Breadsticks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few studies have examined the effects on nutrient contents and organoleptic properties of substituting wheat flour by protein dense ingredients as are soy protein concentrate, oat and chia in bakery formulas. The objective of the study was to assess the effect of adding soy protein concentrate, oat and chia to two breadsticks formulas proposed to provide at least 10 % of the daily recommended value of protein for an adult. Thirty three percentage of wheat flour were substituted by 3:1 oat:chia (BO) and 1:1 oat:chia (BC) composite flours. The analyzed parameters were wheat-meal fermentation time, moisture, protein, insoluble and soluble dietary fiber, firmness, organoleptic acceptance, and preference. Results revealed that both formulas contributed the minimum wished protein content, had higher dietary fiber content than only wheat flour breadsticks and had an acceptable texture, flavor, and appearance. It is recommended to continue formula BO because it turned out to be the favorite in the preference test.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".