Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42481503›Full record

ReviewNPJ science of food2026

Inferred vegans in studies not designed to assess vegan status may be largely artifacts.

Christian Koeder, Maximilian Andreas Storz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ science of food, 2026. 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

2 authors.

Christian KoederIndependent Researcher, Ellwangen, Germany. christiankoeder@gmail.com.
Maximilian Andreas StorzDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Centre for Complementary Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany. maximilian.storz@uniklinik-freiburg.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent studies from China and India, none designed to assess vegan status, reported unusually large vegan samples (n = ~1000-8000) and prevalences (~1-9%). These were mostly inferred from short food frequency modules or short-term dietary assessment (e.g., 1 month). Many inferred vegans were socioeconomically marginalized or socially excluded. This perspective argues that the reported prevalences largely result from underassessment of intake and misclassification rather than adherence to vegan diets.

Identifiers

PMID42481503
PMCPMC13389288

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.