ArticleFood science & nutrition2025
Evaluation of Astringent Compounds Using Electronic Tongue Technology.
Article in Food science & nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Elucidating the astringency perception mechanism of protocatechuic acid, a key astringent component in black rice, based on polyphenol-salivary protein interaction.Current research in food science · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Astringent Compounds Using Electronic Tongue Technology.Food science & nutrition · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The electronic tongue (E-tongue) is an emerging technology that enables the rapid and objective evaluation of various astringent compounds. This study investigated E-tongue measurements and human sensory evaluation to analyze the concentration-dependent astringency responses of seven compounds. Difference analysis, principal component analysis (PCA), and cluster analysis were applied to differentiate the compounds based on their taste profiles. The results revealed distinct relationships between E-tongue response values and concentration. Specifically, epigallocatechin gallate (EGCG) and epigallocatechin (EGC) exhibited positive correlations with concentration, whereas tea polyphenols, tannic acid, and procyanidin showed negative correlations. In contrast, gallic acid and chlorogenic acid produced weak astringency responses. Difference analysis demonstrated significant taste variations across concentrations; PCA and cluster analysis further validated the E-tongue's capability for distinct discrimination of astringent compounds. Regression analysis between E-tongue measurements and human sensory scores demonstrated strong correlations for EGCG, EGC, tea polyphenols, tannic acid, and procyanidin, with procyanidin and EGCG exhibiting the best linearity. Predictive models achieved high accuracy (
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.