Effect of Pinto Bean Starch Fortification on Bread Texture and Expected Glycemic Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pulse starches are known to have a low glycemic index due to their unique starch conformation and high amylose content. Hence, pinto bean starch (PBS) was extracted from pinto beans and added to bread formulations at 0% (control), 5%, 10%, and 15% concentrations. Texture profile analysis (TPA) on the loaves was completed 24 hours after baking. Following TPA, the breads were analyzed to determine their starch hydrolysis profiles and expected glycemic index (eGI). TPA results showed that inclusion of native PBS in bread did not significantly alter textural characteristics (hardness, springiness, and chewiness), except for cohesiveness which was significantly lower in the bread loaves containing PBS (0.52 – 0.54) compared to the control (0.61). The addition of native PBS (eGI = 37.5) significantly reduced eGI in bread loaves by approximately 2%. However, the final eGI was still within the range considered to be high GI (>70). The findings demonstrated that pinto bean starch may be added to bread to reduce eGI without significantly altering textural properties.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".