Effect of solid-stated fermented grasshopper (S. purpurascens) on gluten-free bread: a nutritional, textural and rheological approach
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The demand for gluten-free bread has surged driven by dietary needs of celiac and gluten-sensitive individuals, as well as growing consumer interest in health-focused diets. Research on gluten-free products is driving the exploration for high-quality protein sources to enhance their nutritional profile. The edible insect powder replacement on bread formulation is the strategy proposed in this work to enhance protein content in gluten-free bread. This study investigates the impact of incorporating solid-state fermented Sphenarium purpurascens powder on the quality of gluten-free breads and doughs made from rice and maize. Breads and dough with 20 g/100 g and 40 g/100 g substitution of base flour with fermented and non-fermented grasshopper powder, were evaluated. Physicochemical analysis revealed substantial protein and fiber improvements in protein and fiber with a substitution of 40 g/100 g, complying with FDA criteria as a "good source of protein." Rheological assessments indicated that the addition of fermented grasshopper powder reduced dough viscosity and starch retrogradation. Textural analysis showed increases in hardness and chewiness when fermented grasshopper was used, which can be potentially disadvantageous for sensory quality of the product. This research highlights the use of fermented grasshopper as a promising protein source for gluten-free 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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it