ReviewNutrients2024
Ultra-Processed Foods-Dietary Foe or Potential Ally?
Review in Nutrients, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Ultra-processed foods consumption and health-related outcomes: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials.Frontiers in nutrition · 2024Pooled it
- [Energy and sodium content of foods reported in the National Household Income and Expenditure Survey 2018-2019, Costa Rica, according to the NOVA classificationAporte energético e teor de sódio dos alimentos informados na Pesquisa Nacional de Renda e Despesa Domiciliar 2018-2019 da Costa Rica, de acordo a classificação NOVA.]Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025Article
- U-shaped association between ultra-processed food intake and overactive bladder in US adults: a national cross-sectional study.Frontiers in nutrition · 2025Article
- Common Bean Suppresses Hepatic Ceramide Metabolism in a Mouse Model of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease.Nutrients · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The prevalence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) has steadily increased in the United States. Health experts attribute the increasing prevalence of NCDs, in part, to the consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) based on epidemiological observations. However, no definitive evidence of causality has been established. Consequently, there is an ongoing debate over whether adverse health outcomes may be due to the low nutrient density per kilocalorie, the processing techniques used during the production of UPFs, taste preference-driven overconsumption of calories, or unidentified factors. Recognizing that "the science is not settled," we propose an investigative process in this narrative review to move the field beyond current controversies and potentially identify the basis of causality. Since many consumers depend on UPFs due to their shelf stability, affordability, availability, ease of use, and safety from pathogens, we also suggest a paradigm for guiding both the formulation of UPFs by food designers and the selection of UPFs by consumers.
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.