Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41821706›Full record

ArticleFood science of animal resources2025

Sensory Evaluation of High-Marbling Beef Cuts by Australian and Middle Eastern Consumers.

Don Viet Nguyen, Rodney Polkinghorne, Peter McGilchrist

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Food science of animal resources, 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

3 authors.

Don Viet NguyenSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale 2351, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4273-0672
Rodney PolkinghorneBirkenwood Pty. Ltd., Hawthorn 3122, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3303-9625
Peter McGilchristSchool of Environmental and Rural Science, University of New England, Armidale 2351, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3265-1134

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper compares untrained Middle Eastern and Australian consumer responses to various beef cuts (bolar blade, eye rump centre, eye rump side, outside flat, rump cap, striploin) from purebred Angus and Wagyu×Angus cross cattle using the Meat Standard Australia (MSA) protocol. In each country (the United Arab Emirates and Australia), a total of 360 participants evaluated the tenderness, juiciness, flavour, and overall liking of 1,260 grilled samples. Ten consumers ate each sample and each consumer tested 6 research samples. The results reveal that muscle type had a significant impact on all sensory attributes. The highest sensory scores were predominantly observed in the rump cap muscle, whereas the lowest scores were associated with the outside flat muscle. There were similarities in sensory scores across both countries. Cattle breed had a substantial impact on tenderness, while other meat-eating properties remained unaffected. The interaction between country and muscle type had a considerable influence on meat sensory scores, with the rump cap muscle exhibiting the most pronounced differences between the two countries. No other significant interactions were observed. This study affirms that the MSA model can be used for grilled premium Australian beef evaluation in the Middle East, with some adjustments to the consumer perception. This study has also assisted Australian beef exporters in gaining a deeper understanding of Middle Eastern consumers' preferences within the premium quality beef segment.

Indexed as

cattle breedmeat quality scoremuscle typepremium beefsensory test

Identifiers

PMID41821706
PMCPMC12965272

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.