ArticleJournal of food science2026
Influence of Alternative Protein Sources on the Physicochemical Properties and Sensory Evaluation of a Buffalo Whey-Based Cocoa Beverage.
Article in Journal of food science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to develop high-protein and prebiotic buffalo whey-based cocoa beverages supplemented with calcium caseinate, egg albumin, and rice protein and evaluate their composition, stability, and sensory characteristics. Four formulations with inulin (2.5%) and different protein sources (5.0%) were prepared: BWB - buffalo whey beverage; BCC - beverage with calcium caseinate; BPR - beverage with protein rice; and BEA - beverage with egg albumin. All protein-enriched beverages contained 7.05-7.53% protein and were classified as high-protein products. No pathogenic microorganisms were detected, although mesophilic counts reached 6.26-7.12 log CFU/mL after 10 days, which coincided with pH reductions after 15 days (5.95-6.06 in BWB and BPR vs. 6.39-6.83 in BCC and BEA). Viscosity was influenced by protein type, with BWB showing the lowest values (333.5-409.1 mPa·s), BCC the highest values (827.4-1094.7 mPa·s), and BPR/BEA intermediate values (572.7-622.4 mPa·s), comparable to those of smooth samples. As chocolate is a dark chocolate drink, all the treatments were pointed to as having a sweet taste "moderately less than ideal." BWB, BCC, and BEA achieved acceptable overall liking ("liked it somewhat"), with purchase intentions classified as "undecided" or "probably would buy". In contrast, BPR was rated "slightly displeased," primarily due to sandy/grainy mouth feel linked to rice protein solubility. Overall, beverages represent a sustainable and functional alternative and can be easily optimized to improve sweetness and texture, aligning sensory expectations with current trends for functional dairy-based drinks.
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.