Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32477491›Full record

ReviewClinical and translational allergy2020

COST Action 'ImpARAS': what have we learnt to improve food allergy risk assessment. A summary of a 4 year networking consortium.

Kitty Verhoeckx, Katrine Lindholm Bøgh, Anne Constable, Michelle M Epstein, Karin Hoffmann Sommergruber, Thomas Holzhauser, Geert Houben, Annette Kuehn, Erwin Roggen, Liam O'Mahony and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical and translational allergy, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Encapsulated Peptides and Proteins with an Effect on Satiety.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Novel foods: allergenicity assessment of insect proteins.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 8 institutions in 7 countries.

Kitty Verhoeckx1TNO, Utrechtseweg 48, Zeist, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6557-3198
Katrine Lindholm Bøgh2National Food Institute, Technical University of Denmark, 2800 Kgs. Lyngby, Denmark.
Anne ConstableNestlé Research, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Michelle M Epstein4Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna, Waehringer Guertel 18-20, Room 4P9.02, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Karin Hoffmann Sommergruber5Department of Pathophysiology and Allergy Research, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID 0000-0002-8830-058X
Thomas Holzhauser6Division of Allergology, Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, Langen, Germany.
Geert Houben1TNO, Utrechtseweg 48, Zeist, The Netherlands.
Annette Kuehn7Department of Infection and Immunity, Luxembourg Institute of Health, Esch-sûr-Alzette, Luxemburg.
Erwin Roggen3Rs Management and Consulting ApS, Asavænget 14, Lyngby, Denmark.
Liam O'Mahony9Department of Medicine and Microbiology, APC Microbiome Ireland, National University of Ireland, Cork, Ireland.
Ben Remington1TNO, Utrechtseweg 48, Zeist, The Netherlands.
René CrevelRené Crevel Consulting Ltd, Bedford, UK.
Pension Fund for Care and Well-Being · NLMedical University of Vienna · ATKSL Consulting (Denmark) · DKLuxembourg Institute of Health · LUNational University of Ireland · IENestlé (Switzerland) · CHPaul Ehrlich Institut · DETechnical University of Denmark · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The growing world population and increased pressure on agricultural resources are driving a shortage of dietary protein sources. As a result, industry is developing more sustainable novel food protein sources such as insects, algae and duckweed and using new processing techniques. Consumer exposure to these novel or processed proteins, could cause new food allergies, exacerbating a public health issue which is already directly affecting an estimated 20 million Europeans. Introduction of novel foods should not add to the burden of food allergy and this calls for a reliable, harmonised, evidence-based and validated allergenicity risk assessment strategy. The COST (Cooperation in Science and Technology) Action ImpARAS (Improved Allergenicity Risk Assessment Strategy), a four-year networking project, identified gaps in current allergy risk assessment, and proposed new ideas and plans for improving it. Here, we report on the lessons learned from the ImpARAS network and suggestions for future research. The safe introduction of novel and more sustainable food protein sources, while protecting humans from food allergy, calls for a multidisciplinary approach based on an improved understanding of what determines the relative allergenic potency of proteins, novel testing and assessment methodologies, harmonized decision-making criteria, and a clear ranking approach to express the allergenicity of novel product relative to that of existing known allergenic proteins: (from 'non'/to weakly and to strongly allergenic proteins).

Indexed as

Allergy risk assessmentDecision-making criteriade novo sensitisationFood allergy

Identifiers

PMID32477491
PMCPMC7236523
OpenAlexW3031579299

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.