Mature green plantain-amaranth flour inclusion improved wheat bread nutrients, antioxidant activities, glycemic index/load and carbohydrate hydrolyzing enzyme inhibitory activities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study assessed the nutritional qualities of bread developed from wheat, mature green plantain and amaranth grain flours. The raw material flours were processed into breads using the following proportion: WB: 100 % wheat; WPB: Wheat:Plantain (80:20)%; WAB: Wheat:Amaranth (80:20)%; and WPAB: Wheat:Plantain:Amaranth (60:20:20)%. The loaf weight (572.00–611.17 g), loaf volume (146.21–162.11 cm3), and loaf shape (0.26–0.27 cm3/g) increase with inclusion of plantain and amaranth flour. Macronutrient - crude protein (10.10–21.58 g/100 g), crude fibre (0.27–2.73 g/100 g) and energy value (243.74–269.35 kcal/100 g) was increased in WPAB. Micronutrient - potassium (75.99–94.11 mg/100 g) was the predominant mineral. Furthermore, WPAB antinutrients content was below critical values and exhibited higher free radical scavenging activities against DPPH*, ABTS*, FRAP* and Fe2+chelation; high α-amylase-glucosidase inhibitory activities (>60 %), and low glycemic index (<55 %) respectively. Hence, WPAB may be suitable as functional bread.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".