Acute Effects of Split Pea-Enriched White Pan Bread on Postprandial Glycemic and Satiety Responses in Healthy Volunteers—A Randomized Crossover Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L.) flour on PPGR and appetite-related sensations, and (ii) to determine whether Revtech heat processing of pea flour alters the postprandial effects. A randomized controlled crossover trial was performed with 24 healthy adults. Participants consumed 50 g available carbohydrate from bread containing 20% pea flour that was untreated (USYP), Revtech processed at 140 °C with no steam (RT0%), Revtech processed at 140 °C with 10% steam (RT10%), or a control bread with 100% white wheat flour (100%W). Blood samples were analyzed for glucose and plasma insulin at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, and 120 min post-meal. Appetite sensations and product acceptability were measured using visual analogue and 9-point hedonic scales. Results showed no significant difference in the postprandial glucose and insulin responses of different bread treatments. However, pea-containing variants resulted in 18% higher fullness and 16-18% lower hunger, desire to eat, and prospective food consumption ratings compared to 100% W. No differences in the aroma, flavor, color, and overall acceptability of different bread products were observed. This trial supports using pea flour as a value-added ingredient to improve the short-term appetite-related sensations of white pan bread without affecting the overall acceptability.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".