ArticleGenes & nutrition2013
Do we know enough? A scientific and ethical analysis of the basis for genetic-based personalized nutrition.
Article in Genes & nutrition, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
23 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Neuronutraceuticals Combating Neuroinflammaging: Molecular Insights and Translational Challenges-A Systematic Review.Nutrients · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Recommendations Around Frameworks for Evaluating Scientific Validity in Nutritional Genomics.Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Pooled it
- Integrated omics approaches with non-thermal food fortification: pathways to personalized nutrition solutions.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
- Genetics and sports performance: the present and future in the identification of talent for sports based on DNA testing.European journal of applied physiology · 2022Review
- "Right diet for the right person": a focus group study of nutritionist-dietitians' perspectives on nutritional genomics and gene-based nutrition advice.Journal of community genetics · 2022Article
- The expectations and realities of nutrigenomic testing in australia: A qualitative study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2021Article
- Clinical Practice Guidelines Using GRADE and AGREE II for the Impact of Genetic Variants on Plasma Lipid/Lipoprotein/Apolipoprotein Responsiveness to Omega-3 Fatty Acids.Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Article
- A Machine Learning Based Dose Prediction of Lutein Supplements for Individuals With Eye Fatigue.Frontiers in nutrition · 2020Article
- Nicotinamide as Independent Variable for Intelligence, Fertility, and Health: Origin of Human Creative Explosions?International journal of tryptophan research : IJTR · 2019Review
- Sport Nutrigenomics: Personalized Nutrition for Athletic Performance.Frontiers in nutrition · 2019Review
- The Evolving Role of Multivitamin/Multimineral Supplement Use among Adults in the Age of Personalized Nutrition.Nutrients · 2018Review
- Review
- Single-Subject Studies in Translational Nutrition Research.Annual review of nutrition · 2017Review
- Uninformed consent in nutrigenomic research.European journal of human genetics : EJHG · 2017Article
- Proposed guidelines to evaluate scientific validity and evidence for genotype-based dietary advice.Genes & nutrition · 2017Review
- Ethical issues in the development and implementation of nutrition-related public health policies and interventions: A scoping review.PloS one · 2017Article
- Risks of nutrigenomics and nutrigenetics? What the scientists say.Genes & nutrition · 2014Article
- Values at stake: autonomy, responsibility, and trustworthiness in relation to genetic testing and personalized nutrition advice.Genes & nutrition · 2013Article
- Editorial.Genes & nutrition · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This article discusses the prospects and limitations of the scientific basis for offering personalized nutrition advice based upon individual genetic information. Two divergent scientific positions are presented, with an ethical comment. The crucial question is whether the current knowledge base is sufficiently strong for taking an ethically responsible decision to offer personalized nutrition advice based upon gene-diet-health interaction. According to the first position, the evidence base for translating the outcomes of nutrigenomics research into personalized nutritional advice is as yet immature. There is also limited evidence that genotype-based dietary advice will motivate appropriate behavior changes. Filling the gaps in our knowledge will require larger and better randomized controlled trials. According to the second position, personalized nutrition must be evaluated in relation to generally accepted standard dietary advice-partly derived from epidemiological observations and usually not proven by clinical trials. With personalized nutrition, we cannot demand stronger evidence. In several specific cases of gene-diet interaction, it may be more beneficial for individuals with specific genotypes to follow personalized advice rather than general dietary recommendations. The ethical comment, finally, considers the ethical aspects of deciding how to proceed in the face of such uncertainty. Two approaches for an ethically responsible way forward are proposed. Arguing from a precautionary approach, it is suggested that personalized dietary advice should be offered only when there is strong scientific evidence for health effects, followed by stepwise evaluation of unforeseen behavioral and psychological effects. Arguing from theoretical and applied ethics as well as psychology, it is also suggested that personalized advice should avoid paternalism and instead focus on supporting the autonomous choice of each person.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.