ArticleNutrients2023
Putting the Personalized Metabolic Avatar into Production: A Comparison between Deep-Learning and Statistical Models for Weight Prediction.
Article in Nutrients, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Using Quantitative Masticatory Dysfunction to Inform Pain Management in Trigeminal Neuralgia Through Electromyographic Monitoring.Journal of oral pathology & medicine : official publication of the International Association of Oral Pathologists and the American Academy of Oral Pathology · 2025Observational
- A scoping review of human digital twins in healthcare applications and usage patterns.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Digital applications for diet monitoring, planning, and precision nutrition for citizens and professionals: a state of the art.Nutrition reviews · 2025Review
- Evaluating Red Blood Cells' Membrane Fluidity in Diabetes: Insights, Mechanisms, and Future Aspects.Diabetes/metabolism research and reviews · 2025Review
- Wise Roles and Future Visionary Endeavors of Current Emperor: Advancing Dynamic Methods for Longitudinal Microbiome Meta-Omics Data in Personalized and Precision Medicine.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2024Review
- Unraveling the Gut Microbiota: Implications for Precision Nutrition and Personalized Medicine.Nutrients · 2024Review
- Digital Biohacking Approach to Dietary Interventions: A Comprehensive Strategy for Healthy and Sustainable Weight Loss.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Leveraging continuous glucose monitoring for personalized modeling of insulin-regulated glucose metabolism.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Recent Progress in the Management of Obesity.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nutrition is a cross-cutting sector in medicine, with a huge impact on health, from cardiovascular disease to cancer. Employment of digital medicine in nutrition relies on digital twins: digital replicas of human physiology representing an emergent solution for prevention and treatment of many diseases. In this context, we have already developed a data-driven model of metabolism, called a "Personalized Metabolic Avatar" (PMA), using gated recurrent unit (GRU) neural networks for weight forecasting. However, putting a digital twin into production to make it available for users is a difficult task that as important as model building. Among the principal issues, changes to data sources, models and hyperparameters introduce room for error and overfitting and can lead to abrupt variations in computational time. In this study, we selected the best strategy for deployment in terms of predictive performance and computational time. Several models, such as the Transformer model, recursive neural networks (GRUs and long short-term memory networks) and the statistical SARIMAX model were tested on ten users. PMAs based on GRUs and LSTM showed optimal and stable predictive performances, with the lowest root mean squared errors (0.38 ± 0.16-0.39 ± 0.18) and acceptable computational times of the retraining phase (12.7 ± 1.42 s-13.5 ± 3.60 s) for a production environment. While the Transformer model did not bring a substantial improvement over RNNs in term of predictive performance, it increased the computational time for both forecasting and retraining by 40%. The SARIMAX model showed the worst performance in term of predictive performance, though it had the best computational time. For all the models considered, the extent of the data source was a negligible factor, and a threshold was established for the number of time points needed for a successful prediction.
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.