Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,175

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Dietary fibres, fibre analogues, and glucose tolerance: importance of viscosity.

Open access
Jenkins, D J, Wolever, T M, Leeds, A R, Gassull, M A, Haisman, P, Dilawari, J, Goff, D V, Metz, G L, Alberti, K G·1978·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj.1.6124.1392
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

To define the type of dietary fibre of fibre analogue with the greatest potential use in diabetic treatment, groups of four to six volunteers underwent 50-g glucose tolerance tests (GTT) with and without the addition of either guar, pectin, gum tragacanth, methylcellulose, wheat bran, or cholestyramine equivalent to 12 g fibre. The addition of each substance significantly reduced blood glucose concentration at one or more points during the GTT and generally reduced serum insulin concentrations. The greatest flattening of the glucose response was seen with guar, but this effect was abolished when hydrolysed non-viscous guar was used. The reduction in the mean peak rise in blood glucose concentration for each substance correlated positively with its viscosity (r = 0.926; P less than 0.01), as did delay in mouth-to-caecum transit time (r = 0.885; P less than 0.02). Viscous types of dietary fibre are therefore most likely to be therapeutically useful in modifying postprandial hyperglycaemia.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.1.6124.1392

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Jenkins, D. J., Wolever, T. M., Leeds, A. R., Gassull, M. A., Haisman, P., Dilawari, J., Goff, D. V., Metz, G. L., & Alberti, K. G.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1978-05-27
Volume
1
Issue
6124
Pages
1392-1394
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-5833
DOI
10.1136/bmj.1.6124.1392
OpenAlex
W2047092958
Cited by
1,175
References
0
FWCI
29.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.