These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

224 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24503332)

  • 21. Attentional capture and understanding of nutrition labelling: a study based on response times.
    Ares G; Giménez A; Bruzzone F; Antúnez L; Sapolinski A; Vidal L; Maiche A
    Int J Food Sci Nutr; 2012 Sep; 63(6):679-88. PubMed ID: 22273500
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 22. Predicting visual attention to nutrition information on food products: the influence of motivation and ability.
    Turner MM; Skubisz C; Pandya SP; Silverman M; Austin LL
    J Health Commun; 2014 Sep; 19(9):1017-29. PubMed ID: 24555542
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 23. Single-larger-portion-size and dual-column nutrition labeling may help consumers make more healthful food choices.
    Lando AM; Lo SC
    J Acad Nutr Diet; 2013 Feb; 113(2):241-50. PubMed ID: 23351627
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 24. Salient nutrition labels shift peoples' attention to healthy foods and exert more influence on their choices.
    Rramani Q; Krajbich I; Enax L; Brustkern L; Weber B
    Nutr Res; 2020 Aug; 80():106-116. PubMed ID: 32739728
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 25. Influence of label information on dark chocolate acceptability.
    Torres-Moreno M; Tarrega A; Torrescasana E; Blanch C
    Appetite; 2012 Apr; 58(2):665-71. PubMed ID: 22198318
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 26. Consumers' choice-blindness to ingredient information.
    Cheung TT; Junghans AF; Dijksterhuis GB; Kroese F; Johansson P; Hall L; De Ridder DT
    Appetite; 2016 Nov; 106():2-12. PubMed ID: 26407803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 27. Effects of alternative label formats on choice of high- and low-sodium products in a New Zealand population sample.
    McLean R; Hoek J; Hedderley D
    Public Health Nutr; 2012 May; 15(5):783-91. PubMed ID: 22281127
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 28. Nutrition labelling and the choices logo in Israel: positions and perceptions of leading health policy makers.
    Gesser-Edelsburg A; Endevelt R; Tirosh-Kamienchick Y
    J Hum Nutr Diet; 2014 Feb; 27(1):58-68. PubMed ID: 23656397
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 29. Consumer testing of the acceptability and effectiveness of front-of-pack food labelling systems for the Australian grocery market.
    Kelly B; Hughes C; Chapman K; Louie JC; Dixon H; Crawford J; King L; Daube M; Slevin T
    Health Promot Int; 2009 Jun; 24(2):120-9. PubMed ID: 19336501
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 30. When reduced fat increases preference. How fat reduction in nutrition tables and numeracy skills affect food choices.
    Visschers VH; Siegrist M
    Appetite; 2010 Dec; 55(3):730-3. PubMed ID: 20832441
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 31. Is food produced by farmers healthier, more natural, and gaining more popularity? Research on the influencing mechanism of food producer labels on consumers' food choices.
    Zhu Y; Jin X
    Front Public Health; 2023; 11():1255023. PubMed ID: 37927852
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 32. Inferring product healthfulness from nutrition labelling. The influence of reference points.
    van Herpen E; Hieke S; van Trijp HC
    Appetite; 2014 Jan; 72():138-49. PubMed ID: 24416796
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 33. Consumers' perception of organic product characteristics. A review.
    Schleenbecker R; Hamm U
    Appetite; 2013 Dec; 71():420-9. PubMed ID: 24012637
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 34. Back-of-pack information in substitutive food choices: A process-tracking study in participants intending to eat healthy.
    van Buul VJ; Bolman CAW; Brouns FJPH; Lechner L
    Appetite; 2017 Sep; 116():173-183. PubMed ID: 28472643
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 35. Potential problems with increasing serving sizes on the Nutrition Facts label.
    Dallas SK; Liu PJ; Ubel PA
    Appetite; 2015 Dec; 95():577-84. PubMed ID: 26278876
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 36. Can front-of-pack labelling schemes guide healthier food choices? Australian shoppers' responses to seven labelling formats.
    Watson WL; Kelly B; Hector D; Hughes C; King L; Crawford J; Sergeant J; Chapman K
    Appetite; 2014 Jan; 72():90-7. PubMed ID: 24126243
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 37. Relationships among grocery nutrition label users and consumers' attitudes and behavior toward restaurant menu labeling.
    Roseman MG; Mathe-Soulek K; Higgins JA
    Appetite; 2013 Dec; 71():274-8. PubMed ID: 24012965
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 38. Influence of packaging information on consumer liking of chocolate milk.
    Kim MK; Lopetcharat K; Drake MA
    J Dairy Sci; 2013 Aug; 96(8):4843-56. PubMed ID: 23706490
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 39. An objective measure of nutrition facts panel usage and nutrient quality of food choice.
    Nelson D; Graham D; Harnack L
    J Nutr Educ Behav; 2014; 46(6):589-94. PubMed ID: 24973021
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 40. Nutrition labels influence value computation of food products in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex.
    Enax L; Hu Y; Trautner P; Weber B
    Obesity (Silver Spring); 2015 Apr; 23(4):786-92. PubMed ID: 25755174
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Previous]   [Next]    [New Search]
    of 12.