ArticleCurrent research in food science2023
Quantitative analysis of 3D food printing layer extrusion accuracy: Contextualizing automated image analysis with human evaluations: Quantifying 3D food printing accuracy.
Article in Current research in food science, 2023. 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.
- Effect of Post-Mixing pH Regulation of a Gelatin-κ-Carrageenan System on the Structure and 3D Printing Performance of Yellow Peach Pulp Gels.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- 3D-Printable Chontaduro (Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Research on Optimizing Forming Accuracy in Food 3D Printing Based on Temperature-Pressure Dual Closed-Loop Control.Micromachines · 2025Article
- A Critical Review: Gel-Based Edible Inks for 3D Food Printing: Materials, Rheology-Geometry Mapping, and Control.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Improving the Three-Dimensional Printability of Potato Starch Loaded onto Food Ink.Journal of microbiology and biotechnology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
3D food printing can customize food appearance, textures, and flavors to tailor to specific consumer needs. Current 3D food printing depends on trial-and-error optimization and experienced printer operators, which limits the adoption of the technology by general consumers. Digital image analysis can be applied to monitor the 3D printing process, quantify printing errors, and guide optimization of the printing process. We here propose an automated printing accuracy assessment tool based on layer-wise image analysis. Printing inaccuracies are quantified based on over- and under-extrusion with reference to the digital design. The measured defects are compared to human evaluations via an online survey to contextualize the errors and identify the most useful measurements to improve printing efficiency. The survey participants marked oozing and over-extrusion as inaccurate printing which matched the results obtained from automated image analysis. Although under-extrusion was also quantified by the more sensitive digital tool, the survey participants did not perceive consistent under-extrusion as inaccurate printing. The contextualized digital assessment tool provides useful estimations of printing accuracy and corrective actions to avoid printing defects. The digital monitoring approach may accelerate the consumer adoption of 3D food printing by improving the perceived accuracy and efficiency of customized food printing.
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.