ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2025
Two traditional Apulian varieties of
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preharvest supplemental lighting enhances productivity and modulates postharvest quality in hydroponically grown Apulian unripe melon 'Scopatizzo' ( Cucumis melo L.).Journal of the science of food and agriculture · 2026Article
- HILIC-ESI-HRMS amino acid profiling of fruits of barattiere (Cucumis melo L.), a traditional Apulian melon landrace.Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry · 2026Article
- Biological activity and quantitative determination of free amino acids from muskmelon (Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
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
Introduction: Methods: We conducted a population-based dietary survey ( Results: Survey data revealed that CUC was the most consumed (98.4%), followed by BAR (92.7%) and SCO (79.5%). However, CUC intake was most frequently linked to digestive discomfort (16.3%) and maldigestion (11.5%), whereas BAR and SCO showed better gastrointestinal tolerance. Sensory testing identified BAR as the sweetest ( Discussion: Our findings demonstrate that BAR and SCO combine greater sensory appeal with improved digestive tolerance compared to CUC. These traditional varieties may therefore be promoted as culturally relevant, palatable, and physiologically favorable alternatives to common cucumbers. Further research is warranted to assess their broader metabolic and health effects.
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.