Nutritional evaluation of whole soybean curd made from different soybean materials based on amino acid profiles
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objectives Amino acid profiles of whole soybean curds (WSCs) and conventional soybean curds (CSCs) were comparatively studied to 1., evaluate their nutritional value and 2., study the suitable soybean material to fabricate WSCs. Materials and Methods Nine types of soybean materials were selected to make WSCs and CSCs. Protein digestibility-corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) and principal component analysis were selected to perform the comparative analysis of amino acid profiles of the products. Results Total contents of amino acids in WSCs and CSCs were 41.24–54.87 mg/g and 27.77–36.82 mg/g. Content ranges of essential amino acids were 13.59–19.38 mg/g and 8.46–11.76 mg/g for WSCs and CSCs. The essential amino acid pattern of WSCs was basically close to amino acid pattern spectrum requirements except valine and sulfur amino acids. As a limiting amino acid, methionine represented less than 0.4 for PDCAAS in all soybean curds except WSCs made from relay-cropping Nandou12 and Nandou25. Conclusions The overall quality of amino acids in WSCs was higher than that in CSCs, indicating that WSCs indeed exhibited higher nutritional value than CSCs from the viewpoint of amino acid profile. WSCs with the high nutritional value could be made using Nandou25 and relay-cropping Nandou12 as materials.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".