ArticlePhysiology & behavior2018
An automated method to detect and quantify fungiform papillae in the human tongue: Validation and relationship to phenotypical differences in taste perception.
Article in Physiology & behavior, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Histopathology of the tongue in a hamster model of COVID-19.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Automatic detection of fungiform papillae on the human tongue via Convolutional Neural Networks and identification of the best performing model.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2025Article
- Histopathology of the Tongue in a Hamster Model of COVID-19.Research square · 2024Article
- Comparison of manual and machine learning image processing approaches to determine fungiform papillae on the tongue.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Development of a Regional Taste Test that uses Edible Circles for Stimulus Delivery.Chemosensory perception · 2019Article
- Impact of FungiformSultan Qaboos University medical journal · 2019Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Determination of the number of fungiform papillae (FP) on the human tongue is an important measure that has frequently been associated with individual differences in oral perception, including taste sensitivity. At present, there is no standardised method consistently used to identify the number of FP, and primarily scientists manually count papillae over a small region(s) of the anterior tip of a stained tongue. In this study, a rapid automated method was developed to quantify the number of FP across the anterior 2cm of an unstained tongue from high resolution digital images. In 60 participants, the automated method was validated against traditional manual counting, and then used to assess the relationship between the number of FP and taste phenotype (both 6-n-propylthiouracil (PROP) and Thermal Taster Status). FP count on the anterior 2cm of the tongue was found to correlate significantly with PROP taster status. PROP supertasters (PSTs) had a significantly higher FP count compared with PROP non-tasters (PNTs). Conversely, the common approach used to determine the number of FP in a small 6mm diameter circle on the anterior tongue tip, did not show a significant correlation irrespective of whether it was determined via automated or manual counting. The regional distribution of FP was assessed across PROP taster status groups. PSTs had a significantly higher FP count within the first centimetre of the anterior tongue compared with the PNT and PROP medium-tasters (PMT), with no significant difference in the second centimetre. No significant relationship was found with Thermal Taster Status and FP count, or interaction with PROP taster status groups, supporting previous evidence suggesting these phenomena are independent. The automated method is a valuable tool, enabling reliable quantification of FP over the anterior 2cm surface of the tongue, and overcomes subjective discrepancies in manual counting.
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.