The in vivo and in vitro protein quality of three hemp protein sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this work, the protein quality of defatted hemp hearts and protein‐enriched hemp fractions was determined. Protein quality was assessed using a rodent bioassay to evaluate growth and protein digestibility, while amino acid composition was determined via HPLC. A method for determining in vitro protein digestibility was compared to in vivo methodology and used to generate an in vitro protein quality score. The true protein digestibility of hemp protein 2, a hemp protein concentrate, was significantly lower than that of either defatted hemp hearts or hemp protein 1, a hemp protein concentrate ( p < .05). While there was no relationship between the in vivo and in vitro measurements of protein digestibility ( R 2 = .293, p = .459), there was a significant correlation between the protein digestibility‐corrected amino acid score (PDCAAS) determined in vivo and in vitro PDCAAS ( R 2 = .989, p = .005). The protein efficiency ratio of hemp protein 1 was significantly lower than that of either defatted hemp hearts or hemp protein 2 ( p < .05). These data highlight the nutritional capacity of hemp protein sources while also demonstrating the relationship between in vivo and in vitro methods for determining protein quality.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".