Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38201136›Full record

ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2023

Sensory Evaluation of Plant-Based Meat: Bridging the Gap with Animal Meat, Challenges and Future Prospects.

Swati Kumari, Amm Nurul Alam, Md Jakir Hossain, Eun-Yeong Lee, Young-Hwa Hwang, Seon-Tea Joo

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review 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 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The meatball matchup: Plant vs. animal proteins on campus.Food research international (Ottawa, Ont.) · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Swati KumariDivision of Applied Life Science (BK21 Four), Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52852, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0009-0001-3330-7821
Amm Nurul AlamDivision of Applied Life Science (BK21 Four), Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52852, Republic of Korea.
Md Jakir HossainDivision of Applied Life Science (BK21 Four), Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52852, Republic of Korea.
Eun-Yeong LeeDivision of Applied Life Science (BK21 Four), Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52852, Republic of Korea.
Young-Hwa HwangInstitute of Agriculture & Life Science, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52852, Republic of Korea.
Seon-Tea JooDivision of Applied Life Science (BK21 Four), Gyeongsang National University, Jinju 52852, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-5483-2828

Funding

the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) 2023R1A2C1004867
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Globally, the demand for plant-based meat is increasing rapidly as these products are becoming quite popular among vegans and vegetarians. However, its development is still in the early stage and faces various technological challenges; the imitation of the sensory profile of meat is the most challenging part as these products are meant to be an alternative to animal meat. The development of a product similar to meat requires accurate selection of ingredients and processing techniques. An understanding of the relevant sensory profile can help in constructing products and technologies that are consumer-centric and sustainable. In this review, we focus on the comparative differences in the sensory profiles of animal meat and plant-based meat alternatives, particularly regarding the color, texture, and flavor, along with the methods used to compare them. This paper also explains the sensory evaluation and how it affects consumer preference and acceptability. Additionally, a direction for further research on developing better plant-based meat products is suggested.

Indexed as

animal meatchallengesconsumer acceptanceplant-based protein alternativessensory evaluation methods

Identifiers

PMID38201136
PMCPMC10778684

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.