MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202243105 · doi:10.31665/jfb.2021.15281

Phenolic compounds in cereal grains and effects of processing on their composition and bioactivities: a review

2021· review· en· W3202243105 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Food Bioactives · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPhytochemicals and Antioxidant Activities
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComposition (language)Cereal grainFood scienceChemistryPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cereals are a staple food in the diets of many populations globally. Besides their nutritive function in food, they are also rich in various groups of bioactive compounds, especially polyphenols. Wheat, rice, barley, rye, oat, maize, millet, sorghum, and other cereal grains present a great variety of phenolic acids, flavonoids, proanthocyanidins, alkylresorcinols, and lignans, which can be affected in many ways by the post-harvest treatments and further processing of these feedstocks. This review discusses up-to-date studies about the effects of common cereal processing techniques on their phenolic composition, biological activities, and bioefficiency. Generally, mild thermal and high-pressure treatments enhance cereals’ phenolic composition by releasing the insoluble-bound fraction, which increases their bioaccessibility. On the other hand, processes involving extreme temperature conditions and removal of the grains’ outer layers may drastically reduce the phenolic content. Therefore, it is imperative to optimize the processing conditions of cereals, so their health-promoting benefits are preserved.

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.

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)0.000
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.291 · 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