Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42279640›Full record

ArticleFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2026

Evaluation of Various Interventions to Valorize Dry-Aged Waste Products in Ground Beef Formulations.

Peyton S Arnold, Cameron C Catrett, Palika Dias-Morse, Jennifer C Acuff, Derico Setyabrata

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 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
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Peyton S ArnoldDepartment of Animal Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
Cameron C CatrettDepartment of Animal Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
Palika Dias-MorseDepartment of Animal Science, University of Arkansas Division of Agriculture, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.
Jennifer C AcuffDepartment of Food Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72704, USA.
Derico SetyabrataDepartment of Animal Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7284-0346

Funding

Arkansas Beef Council N/A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluated the impact of treated dry-aged crust inclusions on final ground beef quality. Ground beef (80 lean: 20 fat) was divided into: CON (beef only), NTC (non-treated crust), WW (warm-water-washed crust), DH (dehydrated crust), and SV (sous-vide crust). Treated crusts were chopped, mixed with ground beef (10% inclusion), reground, formed into patties, and subjected to quality and microbial analyses. The pH for day 1 (d1) samples was lower than for day 7 (d7) samples regardless of treatment (

Indexed as

dry-aged crustdry-agingground beefmeat wastevalorization

Identifiers

PMID42279640
PMCPMC13257022

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.