Chia seeds (Salvia hispanica L.), incorporated into cookies, reduce postprandial glycaemic variability but have little or no effect on subjective appetite
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chia seeds are gaining interest as a potential functional food. We compared the subjective hunger, fullness and glycaemic responses elicited by 30 g cookies containing 0, 3, 5 or 7 g chia seed (CS0, CS3, CS5 or CS7; 140–150 kcal, 7–8 g fat, 4 g protein, 0–2 g dietary-fibre, 16 g available-carbohydrate) using a randomized, double-blind, cross-over design. Overnight-fasted heathy adults (24 male, 22 female) consumed test-cookies with endpoints measured before and intermittently for 3 h after eating. Total areas under the curve (tAUC0-3 h) for hunger were similar among treatments (p = 0.49) but fullness differed (p = 0.019) with tAUC0-3 h after CS3 > CS7 (mean ± SEM) (140 ± 9 vs 122 ± 10 mm × h, p < 0.025), but neither different from CS0 (127 ± 10 mm × h). Mean incremental glucose AUC0-2 h after CS3, CS5 and CS7, respectively, were 22%, 23% and 30% less than CS0 (p < 0.05). Thus, although chia seeds reduced glycaemic responses, we were unable to demonstrate a significant effect on hunger or fullness versus control.
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".