Thermal processing methods differentially affect the protein quality of Chickpea (<i>Cicer arietinum</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Chickpea is a widely produced pulse crop, but requires processing prior to human consumption. Protein bioavailability and amino acid quantity of chickpea flour can be altered by multiple factors including processing method. For this reason, the protein quality of processed chickpea flour was determined using in vivo and in vitro analyses for processed chickpeas. Processing differentially affected the protein digestibility‐corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) of chickpeas with extruded chickpea (83.8) having a higher PDCAAS score than both cooked (75.2) and baked (80.03). Interestingly, the digestible indispensable amino acid score (DIAAS) value of baked chickpea (0.84) was higher compared to both extruded (0.82) and cooked (0.78). The protein efficiency ratio, another measure of protein quality, was significantly higher for extruded chickpea than baked chickpea (p < .01). In vivo and in vitro analysis of protein quality were well correlated (R2 = .9339). These results demonstrated that under certain circumstances in vitro methods could replace the use of animals to determine protein quality.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".