Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37835209›Full record

ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Comparison of Check-All-That-Apply (CATA), Rate-All-That-Apply (RATA), Flash Profile, Free Listing, and Conventional Descriptive Analysis for the Sensory Profiling of Sweet Pumpkin Porridge.

DaEun Kim, HanSub Kwak, Manyoel Lim, Youngseung Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Consumer Acceptance ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Comparison of Methods for Evaluating Drivers of Liking forPreventive nutrition and food science · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

4 authors.

DaEun KimDepartment of Food Science and Nutrition, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Republic of Korea.
HanSub KwakFood Processing Research Group, Korea Food Research Institute, Wanju-gun 55465, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-4270-6821
Manyoel LimFood Processing Research Group, Korea Food Research Institute, Wanju-gun 55465, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-2035-8806
Youngseung LeeDepartment of Food Science and Nutrition, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8542-8724

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With significant progress in the use of rapid descriptive methodologies as alternatives to conventional descriptive analysis (DA), several consumer-based approaches have emerged. In this study, we compared four such methodologies-check-all-that-apply (CATA), rate-all-that-apply (RATA), flash profile (FP), and free listing (FL)-for sensory profiling to DA, using six sweet pumpkin porridges. The DA involved eight trained panelists, whereas each consumer evaluation engaged 60 untrained consumers. Overall, the performance of the consumer methods was similar to the DA, and it could effectively profile differences in consumer perceptions of sensory attributes, as evident from high regressor vector (RV) values (>0.89). RATA exhibited the highest similarity to the DA (Rv = 0.96), featuring quicker and less tedious processes compared with FP or FL. Novel combined methods for sensory characterization using the strengths of these four approaches are warranted. This includes leveraging the simplicity and versatility of CATA or RATA coupled with the capacity of FP or FL to capture spontaneous perceptions of products by consumers.

Indexed as

consumer-based methodsconventional descriptive analysisrapid sensory profilingSmith salience index

Identifiers

PMID37835209
PMCPMC10572224

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.