Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40196020›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025

The state of food composition databases: data attributes and FAIR data harmonization in the era of digital innovation.

Sarah Brinkley, Jenny J Gallo-Franco, Natalia Vázquez-Manjarrez, Juliana Chaura, Naa K A Quartey, Sahar B Toulabi, Melanie T Odenkirk, Eva Jermendi, Marie-Angélique Laporte, Herman E Lutterodt and 11 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Exploring Dietitians' Needs and Challenges in Food Data Literacy Training: A Mixed Methods Study.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
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

21 authors.

Sarah Brinkley *The Periodic Table of Food Initiative, Bioversity International, CGIAR, Rome, Italy.
Jenny J Gallo-Franco *The Periodic Table of Food Initiative, The International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), CGIAR, Cali, Colombia.
Natalia Vázquez-ManjarrezInstituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán, Mexico City, Mexico.
Juliana ChauraiOMICAS Research Institute, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Cali, Cali, Colombia.
Naa K A QuarteyDepartment of Biochemistry and Biotechnology and Department of Food Science and Technology, College of Science Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology - KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana.
Sahar B ToulabiDepartment of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Melanie T OdenkirkDepartment of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Eva JermendiDivision of Human Nutrition and Health, Wageningen University and Research, Wageningen, Netherlands.
Marie-Angélique LaporteThe Periodic Table of Food Initiative, Bioversity International, Montpellier, France.
Herman E LutterodtDepartment of Biochemistry and Biotechnology and Department of Food Science and Technology, College of Science Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology - KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana.
Reginald A AnnanDepartment of Biochemistry and Biotechnology and Department of Food Science and Technology, College of Science Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology - KNUST, Kumasi, Ghana.
Mariana BarbozaGenome Center and Innovation Institute for Food and Health, University of California Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Endale AmareNutrition, Environmental Health and Non-Communicable Diseases Research Directorate, Ethiopian Public Health Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Warangkana SrichamnongInstitute of Nutrition, Mahidol University, Salaya, Thailand.
Andres Jaramillo-BoteroiOMICAS Research Institute, Pontificia Universidad Javeriana Cali, Cali, Colombia.
Gina KennedyThe Periodic Table of Food Initiative, Bioversity International, CGIAR, Rome, Italy.
Jaclyn BertoldoThe Periodic Table of Food Initiative, American Heart Association, Dallas, TX, United States.
Jessica E PrenniDepartment of Horticulture and Landscape Architecture, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, United States.
Maya RajasekharanThe Periodic Table of Food Initiative, The International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), CGIAR, Cali, Colombia.
John de la ParraThe Rockefeller Foundation, New York, NY, United States.
Selena AhmedThe Periodic Table of Food Initiative, American Heart Association, Dallas, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Food composition databases (FCDBs) are essential resources for characterizing, documenting, and advancing scientific understanding of food quality across the entire spectrum of edible biodiversity. This knowledge supports a wide range of applications with societal impact spanning the global food system. To maximize the utility of food composition data, FCDBs must adhere to criteria such as validated analytical methods, high-resolution metadata, and FAIR Data Principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable). However, complexity and variability in food data pose significant challenges to meeting these standards. Methods: In this study, we conducted an integrative review of 35 data attributes across 101 FCDBs from 110 countries. The data attributes were categorized into three groups: general database information, foods and components, and FAIRness. Results: Our findings reveal evaluated databases show substantial variability in scope and content, with the number of foods and components ranging from few to thousands. FCDBs with the highest numbers of food samples (≥1,102) and components (≥244) tend to rely on secondary data sourced from scientific articles or other FCDBs. In contrast, databases with fewer food samples and components predominantly feature primary analytical data generated in-house. Notably, only one-third of FCDBs reported data on more than 100 food components. FCDBs were infrequently updated, with web-based interfaces being updated more frequently than static tables. When assessed for FAIR compliance, all FCDBs met the criteria for Findability. However, aggregated scores for Accessibility, Interoperability, and Reusability for the reviewed FCDBs were 30, 69, and 43%, respectively. Discussion: These scores reflect limitations in inadequate metadata, lack of scientific naming, and unclear data reuse notices. Notably, these results are associated with country economic classification, as databases from high-income countries showed greater inclusion of primary data, web-based interfaces, more regular updates, and strong adherence to FAIR principles. Our integrative review presents the current state of FCDBs highlighting emerging opportunities and recommendations. By fostering a deeper understanding of food composition, diverse stakeholders across food systems will be better equipped to address societal challenges, leveraging data-driven solutions to support human and planetary health.

Indexed as

FAIR datafood componentsfood composition datafood composition databasefood composition data managementfood qualitymetadatanutritional database

Identifiers

PMID40196020
PMCPMC11974508

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.