MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186136098 · doi:10.1093/ajcn/nqab228

Neither low salivary amylase activity, cooling cooked white rice, nor single nucleotide polymorphisms in starch-digesting enzymes reduce glycemic index or starch digestibility: a randomized, crossover trial in healthy adults

2021· article· en· W3186136098 on OpenAlexafffund
Thomas M.S. Wolever, Ahmed El‐Sohemy, Adish Ezatagha, Andreea Zurbau, Alexandra L. Jenkins

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Nutrition · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsGlycemic Index LaboratoriesUniversity of Toronto
FundersUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsStarchGlycemic indexAmylaseCrossover studyGlycemicFood scienceSalivaSingle-nucleotide polymorphismRandomized controlled trialWhite riceGlycaemic indexResistant starchEnzymeGenotypeMedicineBiologyChemistryBiochemistryInsulinInternal medicineGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: It was suggested that low salivary-amylase activity (SAA) and cooling or stir-frying cooked starch decreases its digestibility and glycemic index. OBJECTIVE: We determined the effects of SAA, cooling, and single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the salivary amylase (AMY1), pancreatic amylase (AMY2A, AMY2B), maltase-glucoamylase (MGAM), and sucrase-isomaltase (SI) genes on starch digestibility and glycemic index of cooked polished rice. METHODS: Healthy subjects [pilot, n = 12; main, n = 20 with low-SAA (<50 U/mL), and n = 20 with high-SAA (>105 U/mL)] consumed test meals containing 25 g (pilot) or 50 g (main) available carbohydrate at a contract research organization using open-label (pilot) or assessor-blinded (main), randomized, crossover, Latin-square designs (trial registration: NCT03667963). Pilot-trial test meals were dextrose, freshly cooked polished rice, cooked rice cooled overnight, stir-fried hot rice, or stir-fried cold rice. Main-trial test meals were dextrose, dextrose plus 10 g lactulose, plain hot rice, or plain cold rice. In both trials, blood glucose was measured fasting and at intervals over 2 h. In the main trial, breath hydrogen was measured fasting and hourly for 6 h to estimate in vivo starch digestibility. Data were analyzed by repeated-measures ANOVA for the main effects of temperature and stir-frying (pilot trial) or the main effects of SAA and temperature (main trial) and their interactions. Effects of 24 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) were assessed separately. Means were considered to be equivalent if the 95% CI of the differences were within ±20% of the comparator mean for glucose response/glycemic index or ±7% for digestibility. RESULTS: Pilot: neither temperature nor stir-frying significantly affected glucose incremental AUC (primary endpoint, n = 12). Main: mean ± SEM glycemic index (primary endpoint, n = 40) was equivalent for low-SAA compared with high-SAA (73 ± 3 vs. 75 ± 4) and cold rice compared with hot rice (75 ± 3 vs. 70 ± 3). Estimated starch digestibility (n = 39) was equivalent for low-SAA compared with high-SAA (95% ± 1% vs. 92% ± 1%) and hot rice compared with cold rice (94% ± 1% vs. 93% ± 1%). No meaningful associations were observed between genotypes and starch digestibility or glycemic index for any of the SNPs. CONCLUSIONS: The results do not support the hypotheses that low-SAA, cooling, and common genetic variations in starch-digesting enzymes affect the glycemic index or in vivo carbohydrate digestibility of cooked polished rice. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT03667963.

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)0.002
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations9
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical NutritionSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207