Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40953558›Full record

ArticlePoultry science2025

Updating descriptive sensory evaluation of chicken: proposing new protocols and statistical analysis.

Claire Siebenmorgen, Marlene Schou Grønbeck, Alexandra Schubert, Jan Gertheiss, Johanna Mörlein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Poultry science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Claire SiebenmorgenDepartment of Animal Sciences, Meat Science Group, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, University of Göttingen, D-37077 Goettingen, Germany.
Marlene Schou GrønbeckDanish Technological Institute, Taastrup, Denmark.
Alexandra SchubertDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, School of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, Helmut-Schmidt-University, D-22043 Hamburg.
Jan GertheissDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, School of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, Helmut-Schmidt-University, D-22043 Hamburg.
Johanna MörleinLaboratory for Sensory Analysis and Consumer Research, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Georg-August-Universität, D-37077 Goettingen, Germany. Electronic address: johanna.moerlein@uni-goettingen.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Descriptive sensory chicken evaluations are mostly conducted using prepared sous-vide breasts. Sustainable poultry systems in response to climate change and biodiversity loss require a closer examination of existing sensory evaluation methods. To address the new requirements, we present sensory evaluation results from two different projects. Using skin, breast, thighs, and minced variations, we demonstrate (1) how chicken carcasses can be evaluated holistically using more than the breast, (2) how animal-specific differences can be eliminated and (3) whether a classical quantitative descriptive analysis (QDA) and the more cost efficient and rapid method of Napping creates better results. This enables us to provide statistical guidance for selecting the sensory evaluation method and design for future sensory evaluations. This opens new evaluation criteria for local breeds and alternative husbandry systems. Furthermore, a new approach for analyzing Napping data is proposed. The implications of our results extend to breeders, policymakers, and scholars, providing information about sensory evaluation of chicken meat to effectively update criteria and methods.

Indexed as

Animal HusbandryChickensMeatAnimalsBiodiversity lossCluster analysisDescriptive sensory evaluationMultiple factor analysis

Identifiers

PMID40953558
PMCPMC12683147

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.