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.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Frailty and Mortality Risk Among Dogs with Extreme Longevity: Development and Predictive Validity of a Clinical Frailty Index in the Exceptional Aging in Rottweilers Study.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Comparison of Cranial Cruciate Ligament Rupture Incidence among Parous and Nulliparous Rottweiler Bitches: Evidence from a Lifetime Cohort Study Supporting a Paradigm of Pregnancy-Associated Protection against Subsequent Non-Reproductive Disease Outcomes.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Adipose Tissue Metabolism in Response to Food Intake.Nutrients · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.