ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Mimicking Mechanics: A Comparison of Meat and Meat Analogs.
Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- The meatball matchup: Plant vs. animal proteins on campus.Food research international (Ottawa, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence creates delicious, sustainable, and nutritious burgers.NPJ science of food · 2026Article
- Texture Independently Drives Liking in AI-Generated Alternative Protein Burgers.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Utilization of Fermentation Process for the Production of Novel Plant-Based Meat Analogs: A Review of Microorganisms, Processing, and Regulations.Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety · 2026Review
- Modern Trends in Alternative Proteins and Processing Technologies for Sustainable Food Systems with Antioxidant Implications.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Mechanical, rheological, and sensory characterization of lion's mane mushroom steak.Current research in food science · 2026Article
- Predicting the compression mechanical properties of muscle from microscale indentation mechanics using multiscale mechanical models.Current research in food science · 2026Article
- AI for food: accelerating and democratizing discovery and innovation.NPJ science of food · 2025Review
- Texture profile analysis and rheology of plant-based and animal meat.Food research international (Ottawa, Ont.) · 2025Article
- Biaxial testing and sensory texture evaluation of plant-based and animal deli meat.Current research in food science · 2025Article
- The mechanical and sensory signature of plant-based and animal meat.NPJ science of food · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The texture of meat is one of the most important features to mimic when developing meat analogs. Both protein source and processing method impact the texture of the final product. We can distinguish three types of mechanical tests to quantify the textural differences between meat and meat analogs: puncture type, rheological torsion tests, and classical mechanical tests of tension, compression, and bending. Here, we compile the shear force and stiffness values of whole and comminuted meats and meat analogs from the two most popular tests for meat, the Warner-Bratzler shear test and the double-compression texture profile analysis. Our results suggest that, with the right fine-tuning, today's meat analogs are well capable of mimicking the mechanics of real meat. While Warner-Bratzler shear tests and texture profile analysis provide valuable information about the tenderness and sensory perception of meat, both tests suffer from a lack of standardization, which limits cross-study comparisons. Here, we provide guidelines to standardize meat testing and report meat stiffness as the single most informative mechanical parameter. Collecting big standardized data and sharing them with the community at large could empower researchers to harness the power of generative artificial intelligence to inform the systematic development of meat analogs with desired mechanical properties and functions, taste, and sensory perception.
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.