ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2026
Valorisation of Prosciutto di Parma PDO by-products for the development of protein-rich snacks.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: There is a growing demand for high-protein products from people who play sports, want to lose weight, or need to gain muscle mass. Among the most useful protein sources are meat-processed products, which, however, have a high environmental impact. The aim of the work was to create a snack rich in proteins, which allows the valorization of the residues of the slicing of raw Parma Ham a typical Italian product labeled as POD (Protected Designation of Origin), which are, currently, sold at low prices for the production of animal feed or stuffed pasta. Methods: Six different types of bars were developed, they were produced with raw ham residues (35%), pork, water, yellow corn with a high amylose content (AE), or rich in polyphenols (red or blue), pork gelatine/Psyllium fiber, flavorings. The following items were determined on the bars: centesimal composition, Results: The composition of the bars was in this range (as fed): kcal 279 - 313; proteins 26.7%-38.1%; lipids 10.2%-12.2%; carbohydrates 14.9%-18.4%. FAO protein score (ProteinScore) on the digested fraction was greater with red corn (79 Leu) than with blue (64 Trp) and AE (64 Trp). Conclusions: All bars can use the claim "Rich in Protein" as defined by EFSA, the prototype AE Psyllium 5% showed the best resistant starch levels and protein 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.