MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402524728 · doi:10.1016/j.jff.2024.106447

The effect of sprouted wheat wholemeal inclusion in bread recipes on postprandial blood glucose and satiety responses in healthy adults: a randomized trial

2024· article· en· W4402524728 on OpenAlexaff
Wei Cao, Amy J. Tucker, Allison Hoang, Reihaneh Abdi, Amanda J. Wright, Iris J. Joye

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Functional Foods · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPostprandialFood scienceInclusion (mineral)Randomized controlled trialMedicineBiotechnologyChemistryBiologyInsulinInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• 50% sprouted wheat wholemeal (SWW) was included in a bread recipe. • SWW inclusion does not affect postprandial glycemic responses. • SWW inclusion does not affect the satiety responses. • In vitro starch digestibility was unaffected by SWW inclusion. • SWW inclusion did not adversely affect product acceptability. Sprouted wheat wholemeal was reported to enhance the nutritional and sensory properties of cereal products, but few human studies exist. The effect of blending 50 % sprouted wheat wholemeal in a bread recipe on the postprandial glycemic and satiety responses, and sensory-related sensations was investigated in this randomized crossover human study with 12 healthy participants. Capillary blood samples were collected and glycemic response was determined at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 90, 120 min. Satiety visual analogue scales were given every 30 min. While substituting bread wheat flour with sprouted wheat wholemeal significantly increased the α-amylase activity in the dough ( p < 0.05), it did not alter in vitro digestibility or postprandial glycemic and satiety responses ( p > 0.05). Likewise, participant overall acceptability was not adversely affected. Sprouted wheat wholemeal can be used as a functional ingredient in breadmaking, although it did not, in this study, significantly affect digestibility parameters.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.377

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Functional FoodsSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207