ArticleNPJ science of food2024
Unlocking the potential of social media on food additives for effective science communication.
Article in NPJ science of food, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultra-processed foods dominate modern diets, often containing numerous additives to enhance flavor, texture, and shelf life. Concerns about the potential health risks of daily or excessive consumption have sparked online discussions. This study analyzed perceptions of food additives on Zhihu, a popular Chinese social platform. The findings revealed no significant difference in attitudes between experts and non-experts (p > 0.05), with experts relying on statistical data and non-experts drawing from personal experiences. An independent t-test indicated no significance in comment engagement (p > 0.05) among them. However, a chi-square test showed that experts were significantly more interactive, frequently replying directly to original posts and commenters (p < 0.05). This suggests that experts actively facilitate discussions, moving away from reliance on influencers and instead prioritizing high-quality, accessible scientific communication. The findings highlight the crucial role of interactive online platforms in bridging the gap between science and the public.
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.