ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2019
A Comparison of Two Sensory Panels Trained with Different Feedback Calibration Range Specifications via Sensory Description of Five Beers.
Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sensory Lexicon and Major Volatiles of Rakı Using Descriptive Analysis and GC-FID/MS.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Effect of Product Involvement on Panels' Vocabulary Generation, Attribute Identification, and Sample Configurations in Beer.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Feedback on panel performance is traditionally provided by the panel leader, following an evaluation session. However, a novel method for providing immediate feedback to panelists was proposed, the Feedback Calibration Method (FCM). The aim of the current study was to compare the performance of two panels trained by using FCM with two different approaches for ranges calibration, namely self-calibrated and fixed ranges. Both panels were trained using FCM for nine one-hour sessions, followed by a sensory evaluation of five beer samples (in replicates). Results showed no difference in sample positioning in the sensory space by the two panels. Furthermore, the panels' discriminability was also similar, while the self-calibrated panel had the highest repeatability. The results from the average distance from target and standard deviations showed that the self-calibrated panel had the lowest distance from target and standard deviation throughout all sessions. However, the decrease in average distance from target and standard deviations over training sessions was similar among panels, meaning that the increase in performance was similar. The fact that both panels had a similar increase in performance and yielded similar sensory profiles indicates that the choice of target value calibration method is unimportant. However, the use of self-calibrated ranges could introduce an issue with the progression of the target scores over session, which is why the fixed target ranges should be applied, if available.
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.