The nutritional quality of wholegrain and multigrain breads is not necessarily better than white breads: the case of gluten-free and gluten-containing breads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the importance of breads through the history, the wide range of options might lead to a choice dilemma from health-conscious consumers when purchasing bread. In this study, commercial white, wholegrain and multigrain regular breads, sold in Europe, were collected, and classified into gluten-free and gluten-containing categories. For gluten-free-breads, no significant differences were found in energy, saturated fatty acids, sugar, fibre and salt between white and wholegrain breads regardless of the mention "multigrain." For gluten-containing, carbohydrates and fibres differed between white and wholegrain breads, while when considering multigrain presence all the nutritional composition varied significantly. Nevertheless, the mentions wholegrain and multigrain on gluten-free and gluten-containing breads do not guarantee a better nutritional quality compared to white bread. Gluten-free breads showed increased fibre, and decreased carbohydrates, sugar and energy which are comparable to gluten-containing wholegrain breads. This underlines the improvement of gluten-free breads and suggests further investigations to increase protein content.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".