Evidence mapPaperPMID 40689288Full record

ReviewCurrent research in food science2025

A systematic review of data and models for predicting food flavor and texture.

Michael Gunning, Ilias Tagkopoulos

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current research in food science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

2 authors.

Michael GunningDepartment of Computer Science, University of California, Davis, 95616, USA.
Ilias TagkopoulosDepartment of Computer Science, University of California, Davis, 95616, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This review systematically examines the current landscape of data resources and computational models for predicting food flavor and texture. Taste is the most well-defined sensory component, and molecular classification is aligned with the five basic tastes: sweet, sour, bitter, salty, and umami. Odor prediction, while similar in premise, faces greater challenges due to the vast and diverse range of detectable odors and a lack of standardized olfactory metrics. Machine learning models, including graph neural networks and deep learning methods, have shown promise in identifying taste and odor compounds. Texture prediction has seen comparatively less research interest but may prove to be impactful in food quality control pipelines, although more work is needed in creating robust food texture datasets. The review highlights the growing availability of specialized databases which support the development and benchmarking of predictive models. Despite recent advancements, gaps remain in mapping sensory spaces and incorporating receptor-level data. Future directions include creating more extensive and high-quality datasets, improving model explainability, and exploring innovative applications in food design, fragrance, pharmaceuticals, and environmental monitoring. This work provides a comprehensive resource for researchers aiming to advance the field of flavor and texture prediction.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceFlavorMachine learningOdorReviewTasteTexture

Identifiers

PMID40689288
PMCPMC12274706

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.