Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,178

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The STARTEC Decision Support Tool for Better Tradeoffs between Food Safety, Quality, Nutrition, and Costs in Production of Advanced Ready-to-Eat Foods

Open access
Skjerdal, Taran, Gefferth, Andras, Spajic, Miroslav, Estanga, Edurne Gaston, de Cecare, Alessandra, Vitali, Silvia, Pasquali, Frederique, Bovo, Federica, Manfreda, Gerardo, Mancusi, Rocco, Trevisiani, Marcello, Tessema, Girum Tadesse, Fagereng, Tone, Moen, Lena Haugland, Lyshaug, Lars, Koidis, Anastasios, Delgado-Pando, Gonzalo, Stratakos, Alexandros Ch., Boeri, Marco, From, Cecilie, Syed, Hyat, Muccioli, Mirko, Mulazzani, Roberto, Halbert, Catherine·2017·BioMed Research International

Abstract

A prototype decision support IT-tool for the food industry was developed in the STARTEC project. Typical processes and decision steps were mapped using real life production scenarios of participating food companies manufacturing complex ready-to-eat foods. Companies looked for a more integrated approach when making food safety decisions that would align with existing HACCP systems. The tool was designed with shelf life assessments and data on safety, quality, and costs, using a pasta salad meal as a case product. The process flow chart was used as starting point, with simulation options at each process step. Key parameters like pH, water activity, costs of ingredients and salaries, and default models for calculations of Listeria monocytogenes , quality scores, and vitamin C, were placed in an interactive database. Customization of the models and settings was possible on the user-interface. The simulation module outputs were provided as detailed curves or categorized as “good”; “sufficient”; or “corrective action needed” based on threshold limit values set by the user. Possible corrective actions were suggested by the system. The tool was tested and approved by end-users based on selected ready-to-eat food products. Compared to other decision support tools, the STARTEC-tool is product-specific and multidisciplinary and includes interpretation and targeted recommendations for end-users.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/2017/6353510

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 1,178

Metadata

Authors
Skjerdal, T., Gefferth, A., Spajic, M., Estanga, E. G., de Cecare, A., Vitali, S., Pasquali, F., Bovo, F., Manfreda, G., Mancusi, R., Trevisiani, M., Tessema, G. T., Fagereng, T., Moen, L. H., Lyshaug, L., Koidis, A., Delgado-Pando, G., Stratakos, A. C., Boeri, M., From, C., Syed, H., Muccioli, M., Mulazzani, R., & Halbert, C.
Venue
BioMed Research International
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2017
Volume
2017
Pages
1-13
ISSN
  • 1110-7243 (ISSN-L)
  • 2314-6133
  • 2314-6141
OpenAlex
W2774117551
Cited by
1,178
References
0
FWCI
219.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The STARTEC Decision Support Tool for Better Tradeoffs between Food Safety, Quality, Nutrition, and Costs in Production of Advanced Ready-to-Eat Foods. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1155/2017/6353510
The paper
Skjerdal, T., Gefferth, A., Spajic, M., Estanga, E. G., de Cecare, A., Vitali, S., Pasquali, F., Bovo, F., Manfreda, G., Mancusi, R., Trevisiani, M., Tessema, G. T., Fagereng, T., Moen, L. H., Lyshaug, L., Koidis, A., Delgado-Pando, G., Stratakos, A. C., Boeri, M., . . . Halbert, C. (2017). The STARTEC Decision Support Tool for Better Tradeoffs between Food Safety, Quality, Nutrition, and Costs in Production of Advanced Ready-to-Eat Foods. BioMed Research International. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6353510

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.