radiation · Quality: grain · Oryza sativa (rice)
8 claims from these papers.
Papers whose results differ, checked claim by claim 1
1 pair of papers on this question report results that differ: an effect in one paper, the opposite effect or no effect in the other. Two model reviewers reading both claims accepted each pair.
- Effect of ~(60)Co Gamma Irradiation on Quality and Microstructure of Storage Brown Rice (2014)
increaseA 0.2 kGy dose increased cold paste stability and improved cooking quality significantly.
Gamma-radiation Effects on Taiwan-produced Rice-grains (1983)no changeIrradiation below 300 krad did not significantly change the cooking quality of hulled rice after storage.
What separates themSituation: cold · not statedCompare the two papers →
How these papers cite each other
None of these papers cites another one here.
- Positive result
- Negative result or no effect
- Citation, pointing to the cited paper
- Citation across the two sides
- Larger circle: more citations overall
Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.
Papers reporting a positive result 5
- positive
Studies on forage cell walls: 2. Conditions for alkali treatment of rice straw and rice hulls · 1976
- positive
- positive
Effect of ~(60)Co Gamma Irradiation on Quality and Microstructure of Storage Brown Rice · 2014
- positive
Effects of parboiling and infrared radiation drying on the quality of germinated brown rice · 2021
- positive
Application of 28.1 kDa Alginate Oligosaccharide Improves the Yield and Quality of Grain in Rice · 2024
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 2
Gamma-radiation Effects on Taiwan-produced Rice-grains · 1983
- no effect
Disinfestation of Basmati rice by the use of γ-radiation · 2000
- no effect
A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.