↓ Skip to main content

Organoleptic and glycemic properties of chickpea-wheat composite breads

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Food Science and Technology, October 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
1 X user
patent
1 patent

Citations

dimensions_citation
52 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
Organoleptic and glycemic properties of chickpea-wheat composite breads
Published in
Journal of Food Science and Technology, October 2013
DOI 10.1007/s13197-013-1192-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tasleem A. Zafar, Fatima Al-Hassawi, Fatima Al-Khulaifi, Ghanima Al-Rayyes, Carol Waslien, Fatma G. Huffman

Abstract

Prevalence of obesity and type-2-diabetes requires dietary manipulation. It was hypothesized that wheat-legume-composite breads will reduce the spike of blood glucose and increase satiety. Four pan bread samples were prepared: White bread (WB) as standard, Whole-wheat bread (WWB), WWB supplemented with chickpea flour at 25 % (25%ChB) and 35 % (35%ChB) levels. These breads were tested in healthy female subjects for acceptability and for effect on appetite, blood glucose, and physical discomfort in digestion. The breads were rated >5.6 on a 9-point hedonic scale with WB significantly higher than all other breads. No difference in area under the curve (AUC) for appetite was found, but blood glucose AUC was reduced as follows: 35%ChB < WB and WWB, WB >25%ChB = WWB or 35%ChB. We conclude that addition of chickpea flour at 35 % to whole wheat produces a bread that is acceptable to eat, causing no physical discomfort and lowers the glycemic response.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 15 21%
Researcher 14 19%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 11%
Student > Master 3 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 24 33%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 29 40%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Engineering 3 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 3%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 3%
Other 6 8%
Unknown 26 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 30 June 2022.
All research outputs
#1,670,909
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#91
of 1,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#16,569
of 211,766 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Food Science and Technology
#3
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 211,766 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.