MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407587684 · doi:10.1016/j.tjnut.2025.02.008

Beans Improve Satiety to an Effect that Is Not Significantly Different from Beef in Older Adults: A Randomized, Crossover Trial

2025· article· en· W4407587684 on OpenAlexafffund
Megan J Fluit, Zachary J. Ribau, Alison M. Duncan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nutrition · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNutritional Studies and Diet
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Bean Growers
KeywordsCrossover studyRandomized controlled trialFood scienceAnimal scienceCrossoverMedicineBiologyInternal medicineComputer sciencePlacebo

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Beans are a candidate food for increasing satiety due to their protein and dietary fiber content. Beef is a common animal protein that can increase satiety due to its protein content, which is higher than beans but does not contain dietary fiber. Dietary guidance encourages higher intake of plant-based protein foods and warrants satiety studies that compare plant and animal protein foods, which could particularly benefit the rapidly growing population segment of older adults. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effects of 2 bean varieties and beef consumed within a breakfast tortilla on satiety, food intake, and 24-h energy intake in older adults. METHODS: ) 25.1 ± 3.25] consumed 3 breakfast tortilla test meals containing 1 serving of black beans (135 g), red kidney beans (135 g), or beef (80 g) in a randomized, crossover design. Participants rated their appetite sensations on periodic visual analogue scales, food intake was measured at an ad libitum pizza lunch meal, and 24-h energy intake was measured using weighed food records. Appetite sensation area under the curves (AUCs) were compared between treatments using repeated-measures analysis of covariance, and food intake and 24-h energy intake were compared using repeated-measures analysis of variance. RESULTS: Fullness and satisfaction were significantly increased, while hunger, desire to eat, and prospective food consumption were significantly decreased, following consumption of the black bean, red kidney bean, and beef test meals. Appetite sensation AUCs, ad libitum pizza intake, and 24-h energy intake did not significantly differ between the test meals. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrate that beans improve satiety to an extent that is not significantly different from beef in older adults, thereby supporting the role of beans as a nutrient-dense source of protein and dietary fiber as part of a satisfying meal for older adults. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT05499819.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NutritionSame topicNutritional Studies and DietFrench-language works237,207