ArticleJournal of food and drug analysis2018
Application of food description to the food classification system: Evidence of risk assessment from Taiwan as Acrylamide of grain products.
Article in Journal of food and drug analysis, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing Plant-Based Diets in Taiwan Using a Harmonized Food Description-Incorporated Framework.Nutrients · 2025Article
- Biofabricated zinc oxide nanoparticles mitigate acrylamide-induced immune toxicity and modulate immune-related genes and microRNA in rats.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2025Article
- Comparisons of the Effects of Low- or High-Fat Diets Rich in Soybean Oil, Lard, and Tea Seed Oil on Markers of Blood-Brain Barrier and Neuroinflammation in Ovariectomized Mice.International journal of food science · 2025Article
- Review of the Terminology, Approaches, and Formulations Used in the Guidelines on Quantitative Risk Assessment of Chemical Hazards in Food.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- The Integration of Recipes with a Standardizable Food Description FACET for Cadmium Exposure Risk Assessment.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Harmonization of national consumption data for international comparison is an important but challenging work, yet to date there is a lack of comparable food classification system that incorporates food description in Taiwan. In 2015, European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) released a new standardized food classification and description system called FoodEx2, which provides a flexible combination of classifications and descriptions. Based on FoodEx2 and a unique data set of daily food consumption offered by Taiwan Food Consumption Database, this study aims to provide a harmonized, food description incorporated, food classification system (HFDFC system) that captures all the useful details of food groups in exposure assessments. The HFDFC system was built according to six risk-assessment-related facets including food sources, processed products, cooking methods, manufacturers (brand), food additives and specialty foods. The HFDFC system includes 199 foods in the core list and 131 foods in the extended list. This study also compared the Acrylamide hazard index estimated under the HFDFC system with that under the National Food Consumption Database in Taiwan (NFCDT). The findings indicated that the HFDFC system provides useful and detailed information that helps the users to quickly identify food information in a harmonized manner and to reduce estimation bias. The HFDFC system is expected to facilitate global comparisons in the food risk assessment because it is built based upon EU Foodex2.
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.