MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Recent Advances in Plant-Based Edible Emulsion Gels for 3D-Printed Foods

2025· review· en· W4407114120 on OpenAlexaff
Xiyue Liu, Yanpeng Cheng, Tiexin Sun, Yi Lu, Siqi Huan, Shouxin Liu, Wei Li, Zhiguo Li, Yang Liu, Orlando J. Rojas, David Julian McClements, Long Bai

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Food Science and Technology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicPickering emulsions and particle stabilization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEmulsion3d printedMaterials scienceNanotechnologyProcess (computing)Food productsProcess engineeringComputer scienceBiochemical engineeringFood scienceChemistryManufacturing engineeringChemical engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

3D printing has emerged as a suitable technology for creating foodstuff with functional, sensorial, and nutritional attributes. There is growing interest in creating plant-based foods as alternatives to address current demands, especially to tailor consumer preferences. Consequently, plant-derived edible inks for additive manufacturing have emerged as suitable options, including emulsion gels (or emulgels). These gels can be formulated entirely from plant-derived lipids, proteins, polysaccharides, and/or other ingredients to form complex fluids that belong to the category of soft matter. This review summarizes the most recent advances in the areas of formation, structuring, properties, and applications of plant-based emulsion gels for 3D-printed food. These semisolid materials can be extruded to the set or solidified into structures with predesigned shapes, fidelity, and sensory attributes across the senses (taste, smell, sight, and touch) along with nutrition values. Emulsion gels can be formed by either solely gelling the continuous phase or combining this process with the formation of a particle network through aggregation and close packing. The current challenges facing the development of edible inks using plant-based materials are critically discussed to stimulate further advances in the rapidly growing field of personalized 3D-printed foods.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score0.664

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations15
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Food Science and TechnologySame topicPickering emulsions and particle stabilizationFrench-language works237,207