MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391983493 · doi:10.1111/jpn.13940

Determining the effects of <i>Candida utilis</i>‐fermented pea starch vs. unfermented pea starch, alone or in whole diets, on palatability and glycemic response in dogs and cats

2024· article· en· W4391983493 on OpenAlexafffund
Priscilla Curso-Almeida, Marina Subramaniam, Alyssa Gallagher, Jennifer A. Adolphe, Murray D. Drew, Matthew E. Loewen, Lynn P. Weber

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Physiology and Animal Nutrition · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicProbiotics and Fermented Foods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSaskatchewan Pulse Growers
KeywordsPalatabilityStarchFood scienceFermentationGlycemicBiologyResistant starchChemistryBiotechnologyInsulin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Current research suggests yeast fermentation has the potential to improve palatability of pea-based diets for both cats and dogs. However, to be useful, fermentation should not compromise other healthy attributes of peas such as a low glycemic response. Fermentation of uncooked pea starch with Candida utilis (ATCC 9950) appeared to increase crude protein, crude fiber content, inorganic compounds (phosphorus and iron) and phenols. Whole diets were designed with fermented and unfermented pea starch to assess palatability, food intake, and glycemic responses in unacclimated, mixed sex Beagle dogs and mixed breed cats (n = 8 and n = 7, respectively). For palatability testing, a control diet was formulated with 30% corn starch as well as test diets with 30% inclusion of fermented or unfermented pea starch (all lab-made), then compared to a commercial diet containing pea starch (Legacy/Horizon). Fermentation had little effect on rapidly digestible starch either in uncooked starch form or when incorporated into whole diets, but did decrease resistant starch by 15% and increase slowly digestible starch by 20%. Palatability tests using either two choices or four choices at a time revealed a significant preference for the fermented pea starch diet (p < 0.01) in both species. For the glycemic responses, a total of four different pea products were included: unfermented pea starch, fermented pea starch, and 30% inclusion of unfermented and fermented pea starch in whole formulated diets. There were no significant changes in glycemic responses with the fermented pea diet compared to the unfermented diet, demonstrating that healthful low glycemic properties of pea starch were retained after C. utilis fermentation. Overall, C. utilis-fermentation technique was successfully adapted to pea starch where it resulted in increased palatability and food intake in dogs and cats, with potential to positively contribute to overall health benefits for both species.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Physiology and Animal NutritionSame topicProbiotics and Fermented FoodsFrench-language works237,207