Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37780279›Full record

ReviewFood chemistry: X2023

Oat milk analogue versus traditional milk: Comprehensive evaluation of scientific evidence for processing techniques and health effects.

Yonghui Yu, Xinping Li, Jingjie Zhang, Xiao Li, Jing Wang, Baoguo Sun

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Food chemistry: X, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
–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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. A concise review of millet milk development.Journal of food science · 2025
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

6 authors.

Yonghui YuChina-Canada Joint Lab of Food Nutrition and Health (Beijing); Key Laboratory of Geriatric Nutrition and Health (Beijing Technology and Business University), Ministry of Education; Key Laboratory of Special Food Supervision Technology for State Market Regulation; China Food Flavor and Nutrition Health Innovation, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing 100048, China.
Xinping LiChina-Canada Joint Lab of Food Nutrition and Health (Beijing); Key Laboratory of Geriatric Nutrition and Health (Beijing Technology and Business University), Ministry of Education; Key Laboratory of Special Food Supervision Technology for State Market Regulation; China Food Flavor and Nutrition Health Innovation, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing 100048, China.
Jingjie ZhangChina-Canada Joint Lab of Food Nutrition and Health (Beijing); Key Laboratory of Geriatric Nutrition and Health (Beijing Technology and Business University), Ministry of Education; Key Laboratory of Special Food Supervision Technology for State Market Regulation; China Food Flavor and Nutrition Health Innovation, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing 100048, China.
Xiao LiSenior Department of Orthopedics, the Fourth Medical Center of PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100048, China.
Jing WangChina-Canada Joint Lab of Food Nutrition and Health (Beijing); Key Laboratory of Geriatric Nutrition and Health (Beijing Technology and Business University), Ministry of Education; Key Laboratory of Special Food Supervision Technology for State Market Regulation; China Food Flavor and Nutrition Health Innovation, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing 100048, China.
Baoguo SunChina-Canada Joint Lab of Food Nutrition and Health (Beijing); Key Laboratory of Geriatric Nutrition and Health (Beijing Technology and Business University), Ministry of Education; Key Laboratory of Special Food Supervision Technology for State Market Regulation; China Food Flavor and Nutrition Health Innovation, Beijing Technology and Business University, Beijing 100048, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Milk, enriched with high-quality protein, is a healthy and nutritious food that meets people's needs. However, consumers are turning their attention to plant-based milk due to several concerns, such as lactose intolerance, allergies and some diseases caused by milk; carbon emission from cattle farming; economical aspects; and low access to vitamins and minerals. Oat milk, which is produced from whole grain oats, is lactose free and rich in a variety of nutrients and phytochemicals. With the significant development of food processing methods and advancement in milk simulation products, the production of plant-based milk, such as cereal milk, has greatly progressed. This review described some features of oat milk analogue versus traditional milk and compared the properties, processing technologies, health effects, environmental friendliness, and consumer acceptance of these products. It is expected to provide a reference for evaluating development trends and helping consumers choose between oat milk and traditional milk.

Indexed as

Health effectsOat milk analogueProcessing technologiesProduct propertiesTraditional milk

Identifiers

PMID37780279
PMCPMC10534225

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.