MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045565489 · doi:10.4236/ajps.2020.117081

The Effect of Potato Varieties and Processing Methods on Glycemic Response

2020· article· en· W3045565489 on OpenAlexafffund
Reena Grittle Pinhero, Qiang Liu, J. Alan Sullivan, Massimo F. Marcone, Rickey Y. Yada

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Plant Sciences · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Guelph
FundersMinistry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsStarchGlycemic indexAmyloseGlycemic loadFood scienceGlycemicResistant starchPotato starchPositive correlationBiologyBiotechnologyMedicineInsulinInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to identify those potatoes which exert a low glycemic impact after processing, eight early potato varieties and four processing methods were evaluated for their total starch content, amylose content, rapidly digestible starch (RDS), slowly digestible starch (SDS), and resistant starch (RS), estimated glycemic index (eGI), glycemic load (eGL) as well as their relationship among each other. While all these profiles were highly dependent on the potato variety and processing methods, all the eight varieties were classified as low GL foods (p ≤ 0.05). A strong positive correlation was observed between eGI and RDS (r = 0.84, 0.79, and 0.74) for retrograded and reheated, baked and microwaved varieties, respectively), whereas a moderate negative correlation was observed between eGI and RS for retrograded and reheated (r = -0.39) and microwaved (-0.37) varieties (p ≤ 0.05). On the basis of these findings, it can be concluded that potato variety, processing methods, and starch characteristics define the eGI and eGL. Furthermore, for the varieties examined, the present study identified RDS as a major starch factor contributing to eGI.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.028
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Plant SciencesSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207