ReviewFoods (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Advances in Foodborne Pathogen Detection: From Conventional Confirmation to Integrated and Intelligent Platforms.
Review in Foods (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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.
- Recent Progress in Nanoparticle-Based Biosensors for MonitoringBiosensors · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Foodborne Pathogen Detection from Sensing to Food Safety Systems: A Systematic Review.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Foodborne pathogens pose a major challenge for public health, food safety regulation, and industrial quality control. Effective surveillance, outbreak tracing, and early warning for foodborne microbial contamination require rapid, reliable detection methods. Conventional culture-based methods are still essential for regulatory confirmation since they recover viable isolates and support downstream verification. However, their long turnaround time, labor-intensive procedures, and limited throughput restrict their use in rapid screening and on-site testing. In recent years, immunological assays, nucleic acid amplification and recognition methods, biosensors, microfluidic systems, CRISPR-Cas platforms, mass spectrometry, sequencing technologies, and artificial intelligence-assisted analysis have expanded the detection toolbox. These methods improve speed, sensitivity, portability, and multiplexing capacity, but their performance still depends on food-matrix properties, sample pretreatment, and application conditions. This review compares representative methods in terms of analytical principle, sample pretreatment, sensitivity, specificity, assay time, viable-cell discrimination, field applicability, and standardization potential. In our opinion, culture-based methods are central for confirmation, while emerging technologies are better suited for rapid screening, integrated analysis, and point-of-need testing. Nevertheless, matrix interference, limited validation in naturally contaminated samples, insufficient viable/dead-cell discrimination, and weak cross-platform consistency remain key barriers to routine use.
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.