MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972164264 · doi:10.3390/foods8090391

Seed Protein of Lentils: Current Status, Progress, and Food Applications

2019· review· en· W2972164264 on OpenAlexafffund
Hamid Khazaeı, Maya Subedi, M.T. Nickerson, Cristina Martínez‐Villaluenga, Juana Frı́as, Albert Vandenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueFoods · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive Peptides
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersConsejo Superior de Investigaciones CientíficasNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaSaskatchewan Pulse GrowersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónMinistry of Agriculture - Saskatchewan
KeywordsProtein qualityBiotechnologyCropFood scienceBiologyFood processingHealth benefitsFood qualityPlant proteinStaple foodAgronomyAgricultureMedicineTraditional medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Grain legumes are widely recognized as staple sources of dietary protein worldwide. Lentil seeds are an excellent source of plant-based proteins and represent a viable alternative to animal and soybean proteins for food processing formulations. Lentil proteins provide not only dietary amino acids but are also a source of bioactive peptides that provide health benefits. This review focuses on the current knowledge of seed protein, extraction and isolation methods, bioactive peptides, and food applications of lentil protein. Lentil is the most rapidly expanding crop for direct human consumption, and has potential for greater impact as a protein source for food processing applications. Improvements in lentil protein quality, amino acid composition, and processing fractions will enhance the nutritional quality of this rapidly expanding crop globally.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.298 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations261
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFoodsSame topicProtein Hydrolysis and Bioactive PeptidesFrench-language works237,207