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: 36297077)

  • 41. Understanding the role of information and taste heterogeneity in consumer preferences for functional beef: The case of the omega-3 enriched burger.
    Boncinelli F; Piracci G; Casini L
    Meat Sci; 2021 Nov; 181():108614. PubMed ID: 34229235
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 42. European Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Red Meat Labelling Attributes.
    Cubero Dudinskaya E; Naspetti S; Arsenos G; Caramelle-Holtz E; Latvala T; Martin-Collado D; Orsini S; Ozturk E; Zanoli R
    Animals (Basel); 2021 Feb; 11(2):. PubMed ID: 33672549
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 43. Influencing Factors and Group Differences of Urban Consumers' Willingness to Pay for Low-Carbon Agricultural Products in China.
    Geng N; Liu Z; Han X; Zhang X
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2022 Dec; 20(1):. PubMed ID: 36612679
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 44. The Impact of the Food Labeling and Other Factors on Consumer Preferences Using Discrete Choice Modeling-The Example of Traditional Pork Sausage.
    Czine P; Török Á; Pető K; Horváth P; Balogh P
    Nutrients; 2020 Jun; 12(6):. PubMed ID: 32545561
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 45. Consumer preferences for pig welfare - Can the market accommodate more than one level of welfare pork?
    Denver S; Sandøe P; Christensen T
    Meat Sci; 2017 Jul; 129():140-146. PubMed ID: 28284125
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 46. Beef quality labels: A combination of sensory acceptance test, stated willingness to pay, and choice-based conjoint analysis.
    Meyerding SGH; Gentz M; Altmann B; Meier-Dinkel L
    Appetite; 2018 Aug; 127():324-333. PubMed ID: 29792892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 47. Consumer preferences for beef with improved nutrient profile1.
    Flowers S; McFadden BR; Carr CC; Mateescu RG
    J Anim Sci; 2019 Dec; 97(12):4699-4709. PubMed ID: 31628839
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 48. What are the key factors influencing consumers' preference and willingness to pay for meat products in Eastern DRC?
    Udomkun P; Ilukor J; Mockshell J; Mujawamariya G; Okafor C; Bullock R; Nabahungu NL; Vanlauwe B
    Food Sci Nutr; 2018 Nov; 6(8):2321-2336. PubMed ID: 30510732
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 49. Understanding Consumer Preferences for Attributes of Yak Meat: Implications for Economic Growth and Resource Efficiency in Pastoral Areas.
    Ai Y; Yuan R; Jin S; Lin W; Zhang Y
    Meat Sci; 2024 Oct; 216():109586. PubMed ID: 38972104
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 50. Where's the beef? Retail channel choice and beef preferences in Argentina.
    Colella F; Ortega DL
    Meat Sci; 2017 Nov; 133():86-94. PubMed ID: 28662454
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 51. University Students' Purchase Intention and Willingness to Pay for Carbon-Labeled Food Products: A Purchase Decision-Making Experiment.
    Zhao R; Yang M; Liu J; Yang L; Bao Z; Ren X
    Int J Environ Res Public Health; 2020 Sep; 17(19):. PubMed ID: 32992905
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 52. Intensive vs. free-range organic beef. A preference study through consumer liking and conjoint analysis.
    García-Torres S; López-Gajardo A; Mesías FJ
    Meat Sci; 2016 Apr; 114():114-120. PubMed ID: 26771143
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 53. Consumers' willingness to buy meat and seafood products close to the expiry date: an exploratory study from Denmark.
    Pandey S; Bohl A; Favari V; Mora P; Phuyal S; Sojková E; Budhathoki M; Thomsen M
    Front Nutr; 2024; 11():1371634. PubMed ID: 38533462
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 54. Perceived Value of Information Attributes: Accounting for Consumer Heterogeneous Preference and Valuation for Traceable Agri-Food.
    Liu R; Wang J; Liang J; Ma H; Liang F
    Foods; 2023 Feb; 12(4):. PubMed ID: 36832785
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 55. Study on the Influencing Factors and Willingness to Pay of Consumers Purchasing Ecological Agricultural Products.
    Hao H; Yin S; Yu H; Liu Z; Liu Z
    J Environ Public Health; 2022; 2022():8469996. PubMed ID: 36133166
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 56. Evaluation of beef eating quality by Irish consumers.
    McCarthy SN; Henchion M; White A; Brandon K; Allen P
    Meat Sci; 2017 Oct; 132():118-124. PubMed ID: 28522169
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 57. Consumers' preferences for freezing of meat to prevent toxoplasmosis- A stated preference approach.
    Lambooij MS; Veldwijk J; van Gils P; Mangen MJ; Over E; Suijkerbuijk A; Polder J; de Wit GA; Opsteegh M
    Meat Sci; 2019 Mar; 149():1-8. PubMed ID: 30448472
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 58. Beef meat preferences of consumers from Northwest Italy: Analysis of choice attributes.
    Merlino VM; Borra D; Girgenti V; Dal Vecchio A; Massaglia S
    Meat Sci; 2018 Sep; 143():119-128. PubMed ID: 29738962
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 59. Consumer preferences and willingness to pay for value-added chicken product attributes.
    Martínez Michel L; Anders S; Wismer WV
    J Food Sci; 2011 Oct; 76(8):S469-77. PubMed ID: 22417604
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 60. Refurbished or Remanufactured?-An Experimental Study on Consumer Choice Behavior.
    Chen Y; Wang J; Jia X
    Front Psychol; 2020; 11():781. PubMed ID: 32670124
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

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