Glycemic Index and Insulinemic Index of Foods: An Interlaboratory Study Using the ISO 2010 Method
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An official method for determining food glycemic index (GI) was published by the Organization for International Standardization (ISO) in 2010, but its performance has not been assessed. Therefore, we aimed to determine the intra- and inter-laboratory variation of food GI values measured using the 2010 ISO method. Three laboratories (Australia, Canada and France) determined the GI and insulinemic-index (II) of six foods in groups of 13–15 participants using the 2010 ISO method and intra- and inter-laboratory Standard Deviations (SDs) were calculated. Overall mean food GIs varied from 47 to 86 (p < 0.0001) with no significant difference among labs (p = 0.57) and no food × laboratory interaction (p = 0.20). Within-laboratory SD was similar among foods (range, 17.8–22.5; p = 0.49) but varied among laboratories (range 17.5–23.1; p = 0.047). Between-laboratory SD of mean food GI values ranged from 1.6 to 6.7 (mean, 5.1). Mean glucose and insulin responses varied among foods (p < 0.001) with insulin (p = 0.0037), but not glucose (p = 0.054), varying significantly among labs. Mean II varied among foods (p < 0.001) but not among labs (p = 0.94). In conclusion, we found that using the 2010 ISO method, the mean between-laboratory SD of GI was 5.1. This suggests that the ISO method is sufficiently precise to distinguish a mean GI = 55 from a mean GI ≥ 70 with 97–99% probability.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".