Evidence mapPaperPMID 39767070Full record

ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Redefining Protein Quality: Integrating Health Outcomes and Environmental Impacts in the Plant-Animal Protein Debate.

Francesco Visioli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

1 author.

Francesco VisioliDepartment of Molecular Medicine, University of Padova, Viale G. Colombo 3, 35121 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1756-1723

Funding

MUR PRIN-2022 Prot. 2022NZNZH8
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

There is an ongoing debate about the relative merits of plant-based versus animal-based protein sources in terms of human health outcomes and environmental impacts. This viewpoint article reviews and synthesizes the current evidence comparing plant and animal protein sources on measures of human health like cardiovascular disease, cancer, and mortality risk, as well as environmental factors like greenhouse gas emissions, water use, and land requirements. Overall, greater consumption of plant protein sources like legumes, nuts, seeds, and whole grains is associated with reduced risks of cardiovascular diseases, some cancers, and mortality, especially compared to red and processed meats. Crucially, these health benefits align with the dramatically lower environmental footprints of plant proteins across measures like emissions, water use, and land use. However, evidence is mixed for some health outcomes, and more research is still needed. While blanket recommendations should be avoided, the convergence of health and environmental advantages suggests future dietary guidance should emphasize shifting toward more plant-based protein sources. However, evaluations must consider specific foods rather than broad categorizations. New protein production methods like precision fermentation may also reduce environmental impacts while maintaining adequate nutrition.

Indexed as

meatproteinsustainability

Identifiers

PMID39767070
PMCPMC11675218

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.