ArticleScientific reports2026
Comparison of techniques for the evaluation of taste sensitivity.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Taste is essential for proper nutritional intake and thus has a significant effect on quality of life, yet clinical assessments of gustatory function are often underutilized or poorly standardized. This study aimed to compare two contrasting methodologies for evaluating taste sensitivity: Bayesian adaptive taste thresholds versus taste strip identification scores. One hundred participants underwent two sessions of gustatory testing, with a series of up to 20 trials of spray-based dilutions of sweet, sour, salty, and bitter tastants (QUEST) and the 16-item tastant-impregnated paper strips test. The log-transformed QUEST scores showed similar test-retest reliability to the taste strips score, with the bitter tastant showing the greatest correlation. There was no significant correlation between QUEST thresholds and taste strips identification scores. The QUEST spray test was rated more favorably by the participants for comprehensibility and pleasantness but took 12.38 min (± 33 s) on average, compared to 4.19 min (± 25 s) for the taste strips test. Tastant misidentifications on the taste strips assessment revealed that sour was disproportionately perceived as bitter at low concentrations but as salt at higher concentrations. QUEST logarithmic taste thresholds and tastant misidentifications on the taste strips test may serve as independent clinical measures of hypogeusia progression alongside taste strips identification score.
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.