ReviewFood science of animal resources2024
Current Technologies and Future Perspective in Meat Analogs Made from Plant, Insect, and Mycoprotein Materials: A Review.
Review in Food science of animal resources, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Functional evaluation of wax-based oleogels as solid fat replacers for designing low saturated fat plant-based meat analogues.NPJ science of food · 2026Article
- Survey on the Global Technological Status for Forecasting the Industrialization Timeline of Cultured Meat.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Delving into textural, rheological, digestion, and microstructural properties of mung bean and chickpea-based sausages as a function of gluten.Food chemistry: X · 2025Article
- A Review on the Current Research and Industrialization Status of Edible Insect Protein.Food science of animal resources · 2025Review
- An Investigation of the Status of Commercial Meat Analogs and Their Ingredients: Worldwide and South Korea.Food science of animal resources · 2025Review
- Cutting-Edge Technologies of Meat Analogs: A Review.Food science of animal resources · 2025Review
- Investigating the Nutritional and Functional Properties ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study reviewed the current data presented in the literature on developing meat analogs using plant-, insect-, and protein-derived materials and presents a conclusion on future perspectives. As a result of this study, it was found that the current products developed using plant-, insect-, and mycoprotein-derived materials still did not provide the quality of traditional meat products. Plant-derived meat analogs have been shown to use soybean-derived materials and beta-glucan or gluten, while insect-derived materials have been studied by mixing them with plant-derived materials. It is reported that the development of meat analogs using mycoprotein is somewhat insufficient compared to other materials, and safety issues should also be considered. Growth in the meat analog market, which includes products made using plant-, insect-, and mycoprotein-derived materials is reliant upon further research being conducted, as well as increased efforts for it to coexist alongside the traditional livestock industry. Additionally, it will become necessary to clearly define legal standards for meat analogs, such as their classification, characteristics, and product-labeling methods.
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.