Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31080523›Full record

ReviewGenes & nutrition2019

Nieves Baenas, Anika E Wagner

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Genes & nutrition, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Phytochemical Analysis and Bioevaluation ofAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025
    Article
  16. Frontiers in microbiology · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Nieves Baenas1Institute of Nutritional Medicine, University of Lübeck, Ratzeburger Allee 160, 23538 Lübeck, Germany.
Anika E Wagner2Institute of Nutritional Sciences, Justus-Liebig-University, Wilhelmstrasse 20, 35392 Giessen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-3047-7128
Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen · DEUniversity of Lübeck · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nutrigenomics explains the interaction between the genome, the proteome, the epigenome, the metabolome, and the microbiome with the nutritional environment of an organism. It is therefore situated at the interface between an organism's health, its diet, and the genome. The diet and/or specific dietary compounds are able to affect not only the gene expression patterns, but also the epigenetic mechanisms as well as the production of metabolites and the bacterial composition of the microbiota.

Indexed as

DietDrosophila melanogasterModel organismNutrigenomics

Identifiers

PMID31080523
PMCPMC6501408
OpenAlexW2947294828

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.