| Title |
Effect of fiber sources on fatty acids profile, glycemic index, and phenolic compound content of in vitro digested fortified wheat bread
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Food Science and Technology, March 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s13197-018-3061-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Marcin Andrzej Kurek, Jarosław Wyrwisz, Sabina Karp, Agnieszka Wierzbicka |
| Abstract |
In this study, some dietary fiber (DF) sources were investigated as fortifiers of wheat bread: oat (OB), flax (FB), and apple (AB). Adding oat and flax fibers to bread significantly changed the fatty acid profiles. OB was highest in oleic acid (33.83% of lipids) and linoleic acid (24.31% of lipids). Only in FB, γ-linolenic fatty acid was present in a significant amount-18.32%. The bioaccessibility trails revealed that the DF slow down the intake of saturated fatty acids. PUFA were least bioaccessible from all fatty acids groups in the range of (72% in OB to 87% in FB). The control bread had the greatest value (80.5) and was significantly higher than values for OB, FB, and AB in terms of glycemic index. OB, FB and AB addition led to obtain low glycemic index. AB had a significant highest value of total phenolic (897.2 mg/kg) with the lowest values in FB (541.2 mg/kg). The only significant lowering of caloric values in this study was observed in AB. The study could address the gap in the area of research about taking into consideration glycemic index, fatty acid profile and phenolic content in parallel in terms of DF application in breads. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 61 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 9 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Researcher | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Unknown | 26 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 15 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 8% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 3% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 2 | 3% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 4 | 7% |
| Unknown | 31 | 51% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 April 2018.
All research outputs
#14,980,451
of 23,043,346 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#585
of 1,452 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#199,337
of 329,912 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#20
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,043,346 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,452 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,912 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.