MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947802313 · doi:10.3390/nu11061228

Glycemic Index of Slowly Digestible Carbohydrate Alone and in Powdered Drink-Mix

2019· article· en· W2947802313 on OpenAlexaff
Vishnupriya Gourineni, Maria Stewart, Rob Skorge, Thomas M.S. Wolever

Bibliographic record

VenueNutrients · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsGlycemic Index Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycemic indexFood scienceCarbohydrateGlycaemic indexChemistryGlycemicMedicineDiabetes mellitusBiochemistryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Consumer interest in food and beverages with carbohydrates offering steady glucose release and lower glycemic index (GI) continues to rise. Glycemic index is one of the metrics for carbohydrate quality. Slowly digestible carbohydrates (SDC) offer an ingredient solution to improve carbohydrate quality and meet consumer needs. SUSTRATM 2434 slowly digestible carbohydrate is a blend of tapioca flour and corn starch. The study objective was to determine the glycemic index of the SDC ingredient alone and in a powdered drink-mix. In a randomized, single-blind study, heathy adults (n = 14) consumed four test drinks, delivering 50 g available carbohydrates on separate days to measure GI. Participants either consumed dextrose in water (placebo), SDC ingredient in water, SDC drink-mix powder reconstituted in skim milk, or control drink-mix reconstituted in skim milk (without SDC). Post-prandial glucose response was measured over 4 h. SDC exhibited lower GI (0–2 h) and higher steady glucose release (beyond 2 h). SDC alone (GI = 27) and SDC in drink-mix (GI = 30.3) showed significantly lower GI (−27%) compared to dextrose (100) and the control drink-mix (41.5). SUSTRATM 2434 SDC is a low glycemic ingredient, suitable for product innovations with potential for low glycemic and steady glucose release claims.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.278
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.217 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNutrientsSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207