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 *

141 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 34784489)

  • 1. Materials Properties, Oral Processing, and Sensory Analysis of Eating Meat and Meat Analogs.
    Ilić J; Djekic I; Tomasevic I; Oosterlinck F; van den Berg MA
    Annu Rev Food Sci Technol; 2022 Mar; 13():193-215. PubMed ID: 34784489
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Strategies to improve meat-like properties of meat analogs meeting consumers' expectations.
    Chen YP; Feng X; Blank I; Liu Y
    Biomaterials; 2022 Aug; 287():121648. PubMed ID: 35780575
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. A Prospective Review of the Sensory Properties of Plant-Based Dairy and Meat Alternatives with a Focus on Texture.
    Moss R; LeBlanc J; Gorman M; Ritchie C; Duizer L; McSweeney MB
    Foods; 2023 Apr; 12(8):. PubMed ID: 37107504
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Meat analogs: Protein restructuring during thermomechanical processing.
    Beniwal AS; Singh J; Kaur L; Hardacre A; Singh H
    Compr Rev Food Sci Food Saf; 2021 Mar; 20(2):1221-1249. PubMed ID: 33590609
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Role of Sensory Evaluation in Consumer Acceptance of Plant-Based Meat Analogs and Meat Extenders: A Scoping Review.
    Fiorentini M; Kinchla AJ; Nolden AA
    Foods; 2020 Sep; 9(9):. PubMed ID: 32971743
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Beef customer satisfaction: USDA quality grade and marination effects on consumer evaluations of top round steaks.
    Behrends JM; Goodson KJ; Koohmaraie M; Shackelford SD; Wheeler TL; Morgan WW; Reagan JO; Gwartney BL; Wise JW; Savell JW
    J Anim Sci; 2005 Mar; 83(3):662-70. PubMed ID: 15705763
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Novel techniques to understand consumer responses towards food products: A review with a focus on meat.
    Torrico DD; Hutchings SC; Ha M; Bittner EP; Fuentes S; Warner RD; Dunshea FR
    Meat Sci; 2018 Oct; 144():30-42. PubMed ID: 30008336
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Age, gender, ethnicity and eating capability influence oral processing behaviour of liquid, semi-solid and solid foods differently.
    Ketel EC; Aguayo-Mendoza MG; de Wijk RA; de Graaf C; Piqueras-Fiszman B; Stieger M
    Food Res Int; 2019 May; 119():143-151. PubMed ID: 30884642
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Sauce it up: influence of condiment properties on oral processing behavior, bolus formation and sensory perception of solid foods.
    van Eck A; Franks E; Vinyard CJ; Galindo-Cuspinera V; Fogliano V; Stieger M; Scholten E
    Food Funct; 2020 Jul; 11(7):6186-6201. PubMed ID: 32578647
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Beef and plant-based burgers' mastication parameters depend on texture rather than on serving conditions.
    Ilic J; Djekic I; Tomasevic I; van den Berg M; Oosterlinck F
    J Texture Stud; 2023 Jun; 54(3):440-445. PubMed ID: 37114586
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Tenderness perception of poultry major pectoralis muscle during mastication.
    Lee YS; Owens CM; Meullenet JF
    J Food Sci; 2009; 74(9):S413-22. PubMed ID: 20492131
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Plant-based meat analogs: A review with reference to formulation and gastrointestinal fate.
    Ishaq A; Irfan S; Sameen A; Khalid N
    Curr Res Food Sci; 2022; 5():973-983. PubMed ID: 35721393
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Oral processing characteristics of solid savoury meal components, and relationship with food composition, sensory attributes and expected satiation.
    Forde CG; van Kuijk N; Thaler T; de Graaf C; Martin N
    Appetite; 2013 Jan; 60(1):208-219. PubMed ID: 23017464
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. A comparison of Japanese and Australian consumers' sensory perceptions of beef.
    Polkinghorne RJ; Nishimura T; Neath KE; Watson R
    Anim Sci J; 2014 Jan; 85(1):69-74. PubMed ID: 23773578
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Influence of boiling, grilling, and sous-vide on mastication, bolus formation, and dynamic sensory perception of wild boar ham.
    Ilic J; Tomasevic I; Djekic I
    Meat Sci; 2022 Jun; 188():108805. PubMed ID: 35313213
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. How addition of peach gel particles to yogurt affects oral behavior, sensory perception and liking of consumers differing in age.
    Aguayo-Mendoza M; Santagiuliana M; Ong X; Piqueras-Fiszman B; Scholten E; Stieger M
    Food Res Int; 2020 Aug; 134():109213. PubMed ID: 32517909
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Meat quality assessment using biophysical methods related to meat structure.
    Damez JL; Clerjon S
    Meat Sci; 2008 Sep; 80(1):132-49. PubMed ID: 22063178
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Differences in textural properties of cooked caponized and broiler chicken breast meat.
    U-Chupaj J; Malila Y; Gamonpilas C; Kijroongrojana K; Petracci M; Benjakul S; Visessanguan W
    Poult Sci; 2017 Jul; 96(7):2491-2500. PubMed ID: 28339836
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. A Mixed Method Approach for the Investigation of Consumer Responses to Sheepmeat and Beef.
    Hastie M; Ashman H; Torrico D; Ha M; Warner R
    Foods; 2020 Jan; 9(2):. PubMed ID: 31991694
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Untrained consumer assessment of the eating quality of beef: 1. A single composite score can predict beef quality grades.
    Bonny SPF; Hocquette JF; Pethick DW; Legrand I; Wierzbicki J; Allen P; Farmer LJ; Polkinghorne RJ; Gardner GE
    Animal; 2017 Aug; 11(8):1389-1398. PubMed ID: 27829474
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 8.