Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31504115›Full record

ArticleAdvances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.)2020

Perspective: Guiding Principles for the Implementation of Personalized Nutrition Approaches That Benefit Health and Function.

Sean H Adams, Joshua C Anthony, Ricardo Carvajal, Lee Chae, Chor San H Khoo, Marie E Latulippe, Nathan V Matusheski, Holly L McClung, Mary Rozga, Christopher H Schmid and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 77 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
77citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

77 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

17 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

12 authors.

Sean H AdamsArkansas Children's Nutrition Center and Department of Pediatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, AR, USA.
Joshua C AnthonyCampbell's Soup Company, Camden, NJ, USA.
Ricardo CarvajalHyman, Phelps & McNamara, PC, Washington, DC, USA.
Lee ChaeBrightseed, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Chor San H KhooInternational Life Sciences Institute North America, Washington, DC, USA.
Marie E LatulippeInternational Life Sciences Institute North America, Washington, DC, USA.
Nathan V MatusheskiDSM Nutritional Products, Parsippany, NJ, USA.
Holly L McClungUS Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, Natick, MA, USA.
Mary RozgaAcademy of Nutrition and Dietetics, Chicago, IL, USA.
Christopher H SchmidDepartment of Biostatistics, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.
Suzan WopereisResearch Group Microbiology & Systems Biology, TNO, Zeist, Netherlands.
William YanHealth Canada, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personalized nutrition (PN) approaches have been shown to help drive behavior change and positively influence health outcomes. This has led to an increase in the development of commercially available PN programs, which utilize various forms of individual-level information to provide services and products for consumers. The lack of a well-accepted definition of PN or an established set of guiding principles for the implementation of PN creates barriers for establishing credibility and efficacy. To address these points, the North American Branch of the International Life Sciences Institute convened a multidisciplinary panel. In this article, a definition for PN is proposed: "Personalized nutrition uses individual-specific information, founded in evidence-based science, to promote dietary behavior change that may result in measurable health benefits." In addition, 10 guiding principles for PN approaches are proposed: 1) define potential users and beneficiaries; 2) use validated diagnostic methods and measures; 3) maintain data quality and relevance; 4) derive data-driven recommendations from validated models and algorithms; 5) design PN studies around validated individual health or function needs and outcomes; 6) provide rigorous scientific evidence for an effect on health or function; 7) deliver user-friendly tools; 8) for healthy individuals, align with population-based recommendations; 9) communicate transparently about potential effects; and 10) protect individual data privacy and act responsibly. These principles are intended to establish a basis for responsible approaches to the evidence-based research and practice of PN and serve as an invitation for further public dialog. Several challenges were identified for PN to continue gaining acceptance, including defining the health-disease continuum, identification of biomarkers, changing regulatory landscapes, accessibility, and measuring success. Although PN approaches hold promise for public health in the future, further research is needed on the accuracy of dietary intake measurement, utilization and standardization of systems approaches, and application and communication of evidence.

Indexed as

DietFeeding BehaviorGuidelines as TopicNutritional StatusNutrition AssessmentFemaleHumansMaleNutrigenomicsPrecision Medicinebehavior changeguiding principlesgut microbiomenutrigeneticsnutrigenomicspersonalized nutritionprecision nutritionsystems biology

Identifiers

PMID31504115
PMCPMC7442375

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.