MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Assessment of Iron Bioavailability in Lentils: Identifying Commercial Harvests with High Fe Bioavailability

2012· article· en· W3174516561 on OpenAlexaffabout
Diane M. DellaValle, Raymond P. Glahn, Albert Vandenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and Effects
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBioavailabilityBiofortificationFood scienceChemistryCropAgricultureIron deficiencyAgronomyEnvironmental chemistryMicronutrientBiotechnologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Iron deficiency is the most prevalent nutrient deficiency in the world, a major cause of which is a lack of highly bioavailable dietary iron. Lentils (Lens culinaris) are a pulse crop consumed as a staple food world‐wide, and are higher in iron compared to other staple foods. We screened 28 commercial lentil lines already in use by growers in Saskatchewan, Canada for Fe concentration and relative Fe bioavailability using the in vitro digestion/Caco‐2 cell model. Fe concentration of the lentils ranged from 53.4 – 96.7 ppm Fe with 4 lines having greater than 85 ppm Fe. This indicates that some harvests are essentially biofortified, as values above 85 ppm are considered high in Fe. There were significant differences in relative Fe bioavailability among the 28 commercial lines as measured by the in vitro model. Dehulling the lentils, a practice most common for red lentils, significantly increases the Fe bioavailability. Iron concentration and Fe bioavailability were not correlated in this sample (r=−0.27, p=0.16). These results will be confirmed in vivo using a poultry model. The differences in Fe concentration and relative bioavailability appear to be genetically linked. As Canadian lentils are often exported to regions where Fe deficiency is high, this work represents a unique opportunity to conduct Fe biofortification using the tools of modern agriculture.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.485

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicPlant Micronutrient Interactions and EffectsFrench-language works237,207