MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409621173 · doi:10.1002/fbe2.70011

Relationship Between Gluten Structural Properties and Noodle Texture: Insights From Seven Wheat Varieties

2025· article· en· W4409621173 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rui Chen, Yiqing Zhu, Luman Sang, Liangxing Zhao, Sameh Sharafeldin, Zhi Li, Chongyi Wu, Qingyu Zhao, Qun Shen

Bibliographic record

VenueFood Bioengineering · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicFood composition and properties
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlutenWheat glutenTexture (cosmology)MathematicsFood scienceArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceBiologyImage (mathematics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT A comprehensive understanding of how gluten properties affect noodle texture remains limited. This study examined the impact of gluten physicochemical and structural properties on noodle texture. Seven wheat varieties from China, France, Canada, and Australia were utilized. Results indicated that increased surface hydrophobicity and higher β‐sheet content determined based on the relative levels of each property among the tested varieties reduced gluten water retention, lowering noodle adhesiveness. Greater surface hydrophobicity also enhanced gluten thermal stability, improving noodle chewiness, hardness, and tensile properties. In contrast, higher α‐helix content increased solubility, while a greater proportion of high molecular weight gluten subunits (HMW‐GS) strengthened the gluten network, enhancing hardness and elasticity. Among the tested varieties, Australian durum wheat (AD) exhibited superior elasticity and balanced texture, with hardness (376.43 g), chewiness (267.13 g), adhesiveness (27.49), and resilience (0.815). These properties were linked to its high water‐holding capacity (3.03 g/g), solubility (0.3 mg/mL), and thermal stability ( T d = 58.18°C). These findings clarify the role of gluten in noodle texture and establish protein‐based criteria for wheat selection in processing.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.693

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.192 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFood BioengineeringSame topicFood composition and propertiesFrench-language works237,207