MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Effect of an Optimized Cracker on Glycemic and Insulinemic Responses in Healthy Individuals: a Double‐blind, Randomized, Cross‐over Trial

2016· article· en· W2949297431 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas M.S. Wolever, Alexandra L. Jenkins, Adish Ezatagha, Janice Campbell, Mark Nisbet, Christine Pelkman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsGlycemic Index Laboratories
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlycemicRandomized controlled trialMedicineDouble blindInternal medicineDiabetes mellitusEndocrinologyPlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Consumers are increasingly interested in snacks that supply energy over an extended period of time, potentially in the form of carbohydrates. Foods containing slowly released carbohydrates generally elicit attenuated postprandial blood glucose and insulin responses. A variety of ingredients and processing and formulation techniques were screened and applied to develop an optimized active cracker containing carbohydrates that were slowly digested in‐vitro, including a whole‐grain composite ingredient comprised of a hydrocolloid co‐processed with high‐amylose maize flour. The present study was undertaken to test the hypothesis that the active cracker, with a significantly lower ratio of rapidly available glucose to slowly available glucose in‐vitro , would elicit lower blood glucose and insulin responses than a control cracker in human subjects. Methods Healthy men and women (n=25) were studied on 2 separate days using a randomized, double‐blind, cross‐over design. After 2 fasting finger‐prick blood samples were taken, subjects consumed 1 serving (56g) of the Active or Control Cracker and further blood samples were obtained over 4hr for serum glucose and insulin analysis. The 56g serving of Active (Control) Cracker, respectively, contained: protein, 3.9 (5.3)g; fat, 6.6 (6.5)g; carbohydrate, 42.4 (40.7)g; and fiber, 11.6 (1.7)g. Results Compared to the Control cracker, the Active cracker elicited a 36±3% lower glucose peak rise (1.59±0.09 vs 2.64±0.21 mmol/L, p<0.00001) and a 35±7% lower insulin peak rise (17.4±2.3 vs 31.9±4.6 uU/mL, p=0.00005). The glucose and insulin AUCs from 0–2 hr after the Active cracker were 36±4% (85±7 vs 146±15 mmol×h/L, p<0.05) and 39±10% 0.87±0.14 vs 1.79±0.33 mU×min/mL, p<0.05), respectively, lower than those after the Control cracker. The glucose AUC from 2–4hr after the Active cracker was significantly higher than Control (22.1±5.1 vs 12.9±3.6 mmol×h/L, p<0.05), whereas insulin AUC over 2–4hr was significantly less after the Active cracker compared to Control (0.15±0.05 vs 0.30±0.01 mU×min/mL, p<0.05). Conclusions The results support the hypothesis that the carbohydrates in the Active cracker are digested and absorbed more slowly in‐vivo than those in the Control, as predicted by the in‐vitro glucose release profile. Support or Funding Information Funded by PepsiCo and Ingredion, Inc.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.308 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB Journal→Same topicFood composition and properties→French-language works237,207→