ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Applying the Nova food classification to food product databases using discriminative ingredients: a methodological proposal.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Relationship between 39 dietary markers of ultra-processed food and incident depression: evidence from the prospective UK Biobank cohort study.European journal of nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Growing interest in the Nova food classification system surged among various stakeholders, driven primarily by compelling evidence linking the consumption of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) to negative health outcomes. This growing interest underscores the potential value of identifying clear markers to classify UPFs, particularly to support research and regulatory efforts. Objective: To propose replicable methods to identify UPFs, by testing the sensitivity and specificity of these methods using a large sample of packaged foods from the 2017 Brazilian Food Labels Database. Methods: We created five scenarios to identify UPFs using substances of rare culinary use and food additives typically found in UPFs and compared them with the Nova food classification process based on the product name and food categories, considered the classic method to identify UPFs. We estimated the proportion of foods and beverages identified as UPFs using the different scenarios based on the presence of discriminative ingredients. We used a diagnostic test and a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) to understand which of the five scenarios performed better compared to the classic method to identify UPFs. Finally, we conducted a sensitivity analysis to test the role of vitamins and minerals in identifying UPFs. Results: We found variations in UPFs prevalence from 47 to 72% across the five scenarios, compared to 70% using the classic method to identify UPFs in Brazilian packaged foods. The scenario using food additives of a sole cosmetic function and substances of rare culinary use (scenario 3) identified a 65% UPF, while maintaining reasonable sensitivity and specificity, and the best-performing ROC curve. There was no significant difference in identifying UPFs when comparing the addition of vitamins and minerals to the food additives with sole cosmetic function. Conclusion: This study shows that using ingredient-based criteria, specifically cosmetic additives and substances of rare culinary use, can reliably identify UPFs, offering reproducibility, and supporting its use in research and policy applications.
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.