Determinants of low glycemic index breads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Bread is a significant part of the diet in many cultures contributing a major proportion of dietary carbohydrate. Changes in manufacturer's formulations of commercial breads, driven by consumer demand for increased palatability, may affect the glycemic index (GI). Methods: Standard GI testing was utilized. 10 healthy subjects each consumed 50g available carbohydrate portions of test breads and 3 white bread controls (50g of available carbohydrate). Specific breads were selected: unprocessed whole grains (rye kernels), whole grain flour, novel grains (quinoa) and flax seed (whole or ground). Study 1: 22 commercial breads were tested. Study 2 : 3 breads baked in‐centre to contain whole or ground flaxseed and matched non‐flax control were tested. Whole grain content percentage and pH were analyzed for all breads tested. Results: GI of intact grain breads was not lower than milled flour breads. Ground flaxseed lowered the GI of commercial breads and in‐centre breads (p = 0.003) Conclusions: Commercial breads with higher unprocessed whole grain content were not lower in GI compared to control. In contrast, ground flaxseed may reduce the GI of breads.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".