In one paragraphArticle in Nutrients, 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
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 registryThe 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 literatureWho cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
4 · The recordCorrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
5 · Who and what moneyAuthors and funding
10 authors.
Dorothy T ChiuOsher Center for Integrative Health, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94115, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4826-6217 Jenna R CummingsDepartment of Psychology, Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 7ZA, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8124-2666 Euridice Martinez-SteeleDepartment of Nutrition, School of Public Health, University of São Paulo, São Paulo 01246-904, Brazil.ORCID 0000-0002-2907-3153 Alejandra T LopezDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5258-7868 Jillian ChellisDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
Juanyi TanDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0083-258X Katrina M SmithDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.ORCID 0009-0007-0429-9774 Sameeksha PandaDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.ORCID 0009-0006-2017-8430 A Janet TomiyamaDepartment of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2152-5813 Funding
Training Researchers in Clinical Integrative Medicine (TRIM) - NOSI supplementT32AT003997 · NCCIH · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI SHELLEY R ADLER, MARIA T CHAO · 2007 to 2026
$6.6MFood Insecurity, Poor Diet, and Metabolic Syndrome: Cortisol’s Amplifying RoleR01DK128575 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI TOMIYAMA, A. JANET · 2021 to 2025
$2.0MObesity stigma and health behavior: An experimental approachR01HL158555 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI TOMIYAMA, A. JANET · 2021 to 2023
$1.3MComfort eating in the Eating in America Study: New insights to inform prevention and intervention efforts across the lifespanR21DK134906 · NIDDK · NATIONAL OPINION RESEARCH CENTER · PI FINCH, LAURA ELIZABETH · 2023 to 2025
$537kNational Heart Lung and Blood Institute R01HL158555NCCIH NIH HHS T32 AT003997NCCIH NIH HHS T32AT003997NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL158555NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK128575NIDDK NIH HHS R01DK128575NIDDK NIH HHS R21 DK134906NIDDK NIH HHS R21DK134906U.S. National Science Foundation BCS2220295
6 · The paper itselfAbstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesComfort foods are perceived as energy dense and highly palatable, yet little empirical research documenting the veracity of such perceptions exists.
methodsWe analyzed comfort foods for nutrient content, hyperpalatability, ultra-processing, and by demographic factors, hypothesizing poor nutritional profiles (higher fat, sugar, sodium, ultra-processing) and demographic differences in preferences. US census-matched respondents (
results
conclusionsUS comfort foods range widely but converge on certain foods. Nutritional quality could broadly improve; demographic differences are minor. These findings enhance the practical understanding of comfort food nutrition and inform efforts towards healthier comfort food selection.
Indexed as
Feeding BehaviorFood LabelingFood PreferencesNutritive ValueAdolescentAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedUnited StatesYoung AdultAmerican dietcomfort eatinghyperpalatable foodsstress eatingultra-processed foods
Identifiers
PMID42884708
PMCPMC13667082
What OpenQuestion holds
Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390