Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32060544›Full record

ReviewJournal of animal science2020

Devising a new dialogue for nutrition science: how life course perspective, U-shaped thinking, whole organism thinking, and language precision contribute to our understanding of biological heterogeneity and forge a fresh advance toward precision medicine.

David J Waters

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of animal science, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
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

1 author.

David J WatersCenter for Exceptional Longevity Studies, Gerald P. Murphy Cancer Foundation, West Lafayette, IN.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The process of designing and implementing individualized health-promoting interventions, nutritional or otherwise, is fraught with great difficulty owing to the heterogeneity inherent in factors that influence healthy longevity. This article proposes that careful attention to three principles-life course perspective, U-shaped thinking, and whole organism thinking-creates an attitudinal framework that can be used to reframe biological heterogeneity into the clinically relevant question: Who will benefit? The search for tools to cope with the complexity of this heterogeneity has been dominated by technological advances, including state-of-the-art "-omics" approaches and machine-based handling of "big data." Here, it is proposed that language precision and nuanced category usage could provide critical tools for coping with heterogeneity, thereby enabling interventionalists to design and implement strategies to promote healthy longevity with greater precision. The lack of a clear understanding of "Who will benefit?" stands as a major obstacle to the design and implementation of nutritional strategies to optimize healthy longevity. This article opens a new dialogue situating the principles of life course perspective, U-shaped thinking, and whole organism thinking, along with cultivating an attitude of language precision at the very core of accelerating creative discovery and refining practical advance in the field of nutrition science.

Indexed as

Animal Nutrition SciencesHealth StatusAnimalsHumansNutrigenomicsPrecision Medicineagingdose responselongevityneologismpet dogstrade-offs

Identifiers

PMID32060544
PMCPMC7070153

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.