ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Physical Modification of Starch Digestibility: A Comprehensive Review and AI-Assisted Qualitative Knowledge Extraction.
Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Starch modification through physical processing represents a promising "green" strategy to enhance food functionality and nutritional quality while meeting clean-label demands. This review offers a critical overview of the structural and nutritional impacts of physical modifications coupled with an exploratory use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted literature for screening and mining. Focused on literature published between 2001 and 2026, a traditional human-led systematic search identifies eligible studies that examined the effects of three major commercially relevant modification techniques-annealing (ANN), heat-moisture treatment (HMT), and autoclaving-on rapidly digestible starch (RDS), slowly digestible starch (SDS), and resistant starch (RS), with emphasis on resistant starch type III (RS3). Among the evaluated techniques, autoclaving, particularly when followed by retrogradation, appears to offer the greatest potential for increasing RS relative to the original native starch. However, its effectiveness is strongly dependent on the raw material, with substantial gains arising from its amylose content, while waxy starches may show little improvement or even a reduction in RS. ANN tends to produce milder and more variable effects, often shifting starch from RDS toward SDS. HMT generally reduces RDS and increases SDS, making it a promising approach for attenuating glycemic responses. However, the extent of these changes can vary substantially depending on the starch source, amylose content, moisture level, and processing temperature. Overall, the work revisits the potential of physical processing as an avenue for starch engineering while underlining a pressing need for standardized workflows, harmonized methodologies, and unified protocols for quantification of starch digestibility, namely, of RS levels. Lastly, the review exemplifies AI can accelerate preliminary literature identification and synthesis yet highlights gaps in AI aptitudes for independent quantitative integration that still maintains a need for thorough human-driven validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.