ArticleFood chemistry: X2025
Quality variation of house cricket (
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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- House Cricket (Insects · 2026Review
- Nutritional and techno-functional enhancement of noodles through cricket powder incorporation: Implications for starch digestibility and flavor.Food chemistry: X · 2026Article
- Effects of Cricket Powder Supplementation on Gut Microbiota in High-Fat Diet-Fed Mice.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Osteoprotective effects of partially defatted house cricket (Acheta domesticus) powder in spontaneously hypertensive rats.PloS one · 2026Article
- Sustainable Valorization of Crickets: Optimized Low-Pressure Supercritical COFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Incorporating Cricket Powder into Salad Dressing: Enhancing Protein Content and Functional Attributes Through Partial Palm-Oil Replacement.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Nutritional and Functional Enhancement of Chinese Steamed Bread Through Incorporation ofFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assessed the quality of house cricket (
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.