Alzahraa Mahmoud Motawei

Background: Large positive responses to placebo are common in clinical trials and pose a major challenge when evaluating different treatments, including new foods. Standard between-group comparisons may fail to detect true effects when placebo improvements are significant. We aimed to demonstrate how a simple dose–response correlation method can help differentiate genuine positive responses from those experienced with placebo through secondary analysis of a randomized controlled clinical trial of powdered Rosa-canina fruits. Methods: Data were reanalyzed from a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial (N = 120; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01459939) evaluating the effects of standardized Rosa-canina powder in hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA). Participants received fixed doses, leading to variability in mg/kg exposure due to different body weights. Pearson correlations between dose/kg and changes in WOMAC pain and function at 6 and 12 weeks were calculated separately for the active and placebo groups. Standard between-group comparisons were also performed. Results: Both groups showed significant improvement, over 50%, with no statistically significant differences between them in WOMAC pain or function. However, only the active group, which received a food supplement, exhibited a consistent negative correlation between body weight and symptom improvement at 6 and 12 weeks, suggesting greater benefit with higher dose per kilogram of body weight. No dose–response relationship was observed in the placebo recipients. Therefore, weight-stratified plots revealed an exposure–response gradient in the active group. Conclusions: Dose–response correlation analysis uncovered positive effects of Rosa-canina as a nutrient that were not detectable through standard between-group comparisons. This is consistent with findings from earlier rose-hip research. This low-cost, easy-to-implement method may help distinguish active effects from placebo responses in trials with large nonspecific improvements. Incorporating such analyses could improve the identification of nutrients containing biologically active preparations and support dose selection in future clinical research.

Seniors nutrition involves many age-related digestive health challenges and increased needs from animal protein. In this study a low-fat beef burger was developed by incorporating chia seed flour at levels (0-2.5-5-7.5-10%) as a fat substitute. The effect of chia flour on chemical, antioxidative, technological, sensory, nutritional characteristics were investigated. Results showed that chia seeds was significantly superior in fibers, fat and ash (31.83, 32.37and 4.85 g/100g) compared to (0.0, 5.57 and 1.25g/100g) in meat, respectively. That reflects content of fiber (1.38, 2.78, 3.96 and 4.62 g/100g) on substitution levels 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10% respectively, with no significant changes in protein content in burger treatments. Also, chia possess a remarked antioxidant capacity DPPH attributed to high content of phenolic compounds 82.99 mg (GAE)/g, 9.18 mg (CE)/g of flavonoids and 15.20 mg (TAE)/g of tannins). Physical properties recorded a progressive increase in WHC with higher levels of chia flour (control: 72.3 ± 1.2% vs. 10% chia burger: 82.3 ± 1.0). The cooking yield improved from (68.9 ± 1.1) in control to (78.1 ± 1.0) with 10% chia. The optimized substitution level (5%) demonstrated an excellent technological performance and sensory acceptability. While higher chia concentrations (7.5-10%) reduced sensory evaluation. Nutritional contribution in treatment (10% chia) delivers 18 % of fiber, 23% of protein daily needs per 100 g portion. Thus, Chia is a promising addition to reformulate beef burgers into functional foods for older adults, offering reduced animal fat, increase in fiber, and retention of essential beef nutrients without compromising technological aspects.

This study aimed to prepare gluten-free high quality biscuits for patients suffer from celiac. used flour instead of wheat flour, were quinoa, rice and chickpeas flours as well as basic other ingredients of biscuits. used blends were rice (B1), (B2 = Rice 50% + Quinoa 40% + Chickpea 10%), (B3 = Rice 50%+ Quinoa 30%+ Chickpea 20%), (B4=Rice 50%+ Quinoa 20%+ Chickpea 30%), (B3=Rice 50%+ Quinoa 10%+ Chickpea 40%), chemical analysis, minerals content, amino acids content of raw materials were determined. Chemical composition of biscuit blends showed that crude protein, ether extract, ash and fiber contents were higher in all samples prepared using quinoa flour, rice flour and chickpeas flour than those of rice flour only. Quinoa flour had higher percentage of leucine (8.60%), and phenylalanine (6.30%). chickpeas flour had higher percentage of lysine (7.80%), valine (5.50%). rice flour was higher in alanine, glycine and tryptophan content. Caloric values of biscuit blends B3, B4 and B5 contained quinoa flour, rice flour, chickpeas flour was lower than B1. Appearance, taste, odor and color of biscuits contained quinoa flour; rice flour and chickpeas flour have higher scores than biscuits from rice flour B1. While, all sensory properties of free gluten biscuits samples B2, B3, B4 and B5 prepared using quinoa flour, rice, and chickpeas flour (87.4%, 90.2%. 91.1% and 92.8%, respectively) were higher than biscuit prepared from rice flour B1(85.3%) overall. The biscuits are nutritionally convenient for celiac disease patients.