Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40060962›Full record

ArticleFood chemistry: X2025

Fortification of cricket and silkworm pupae powders to improve nutritional quality and digestibility of rice noodles.

Hua Li, Yu Liu, Nidthaya Seephua, Chuenjit Prakitchaiwattana, Rui-Xin Liu, Ju-Sheng Zheng, Sirithon Siriamornpun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Food chemistry: X, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Fermentation of House Crickets (Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  10. Article
  11. House Cricket (Nutrients · 2025
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Exploring the Use ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
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

7 authors.

Hua LiDepartment of Cuisine and Nutrition, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province 225127, China.
Yu LiuDepartment of Cuisine and Nutrition, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province 225127, China.
Nidthaya SeephuaResearch Unit of Thai Food Innovation, Department of Food Technology and Nutrition, Mahasarakham University, Kantarawichai, Maha Sarakham 44150, Thailand.
Chuenjit PrakitchaiwattanaDepartment of Food Technology, Faculty of Science, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok 10330, Thailand.
Rui-Xin LiuDepartment of Cuisine and Nutrition, Yangzhou University, Yangzhou, Jiangsu Province 225127, China.
Ju-Sheng ZhengWestlake Laboratory of Life Sciences and Biomedicine, Hangzhou 310024, China.
Sirithon SiriamornpunResearch Unit of Thai Food Innovation, Department of Food Technology and Nutrition, Mahasarakham University, Kantarawichai, Maha Sarakham 44150, Thailand.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To improve the nutritional value and biofunctionalities of traditional rice noodles, this study focused on the effects of incorporating cricket powder (CP) and silkworm pupae powder (SP) on the protein content and digestibility, starch digestibility, and antioxidant potential, as well as the sensory and cooking qualities of rice noodles. Compared to the control (4.96 % and 63.25 %), CP and SP significantly increased the protein content (12.06 %-25.85 %) and in vitro digestibility (71.61 %-90.58 %) (

Indexed as

Antioxidant propertyCereal foodEdible insectProtein digestibilityStarch digestibility

Identifiers

PMID40060962
PMCPMC11889958

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.