Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33215233›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical research2020

Sweet/Fat Preference Taste in Subjects Who are Lean, Obese and Very Obese.

Jennifer Leohr, Maria C Kjellsson

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
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

2 authors.

Jennifer LeohrDepartment of Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics, Lilly Research Laboratories, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana, 46285, USA. Leohr_Jennifer_K@lilly.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5434-7905
Maria C KjellssonDepartment of Pharmacy, Pharmacometrics Research Group, Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences, Uppsala University, Box 580, SE-751 23, Uppsala, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThis study assessed the perception of sweetness, creaminess, and pleasantness from a sweet/fat preference test in subjects who are lean (BMI: 19-25), obese (BMI: 30-33) or very obese (BMI: 34-40) using categorical modeling.

methodsSubjects tasted 16 dairy solutions consisting of 0%, 3.5%, 11.3% and 37.5% fat and each containing 0%, 5%, 10%, or 20% sugar and rated them for sweetness, creaminess and pleasantness.

resultsA proportional odds model described the perception of sweetness using an Emax for the effect of sugar and a linear effect for fat. Perception of creaminess was dependent on the fat and sugar content and was described with proportional odds model with linear effects of sugar and fat. Perception of pleasantness increased with sugar and fat but decreased in solutions containing 37.5% fat. A differential odds model using an Emax model for fat and sugar with a negative interaction between them allowed the sugar content to be less than proportional and the fat content to be greater than proportional for pleasantness.

conclusionsApplication of modeling provided understanding of these complex interactions of sugar and fat on the perception of sweetness, creaminess, and pleasantness and provides a tool to investigate obesity and pharmacological intervention.

Indexed as

Dairy ProductsDietary FatsDietary SugarsFood PreferencesTasteTaste PerceptionAdultBody Mass IndexComputer SimulationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedModels, TheoreticalObesityPhilosophyDietary FatsDietary Sugarscategorical modelingfathedonicobesitypreferencesugar

Identifiers

PMID33215233
PMCPMC7677291

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.