ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023
Characterizing Precision Nutrition Discourse on Twitter: Quantitative Content Analysis.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Misinformation on cardiovascular disease spreads through social networks: a scoping review.BMJ public health · 2026Article
- Description of Weight-Related Content and Recommended Dietary Behaviors for Weight Loss Frequently Reposted on X (Twitter) in English and Japanese: Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Effect of Trust in Science on Parental Reactions to Messaging about Children's Epigenetics-Related Obesity Risk.Public health genomics · 2025Article
- A role for qualitative methods in researching Twitter data on a popular science article's communication.Frontiers in research metrics and analytics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIt is possible that tailoring dietary approaches to an individual's genomic profile could provide optimal dietary inputs for biological functioning and support adherence to dietary management protocols. The science required for such nutrigenetic and nutrigenomic profiling is not yet considered ready for broad application by the scientific and medical communities; however, many personalized nutrition products are available in the marketplace, creating the potential for hype and misleading information on social media. Twitter provides a unique big data source that provides real-time information. Therefore, it has the potential to disseminate evidence-based health information, as well as misinformation.
objectiveWe sought to characterize the landscape of precision nutrition content on Twitter, with a specific focus on nutrigenetics and nutrigenomics. We focused on tweet authors, types of content, and presence of misinformation.
methodsTwitter Archiver was used to capture tweets from September 1, 2020, to December 1, 2020, using keywords related to nutrition and genetics. A random sample of tweets was coded using quantitative content analysis by 4 trained coders. Codebook-driven, quantified information about tweet authors, content details, information quality, and engagement metrics were compiled and analyzed.
resultsThe most common categories of tweets were precision nutrition products and nutrigenomic concepts. About a quarter (132/504, 26.2%) of tweet authors presented themselves as science experts, medicine experts, or both. Nutrigenetics concepts most frequently came from authors with science and medicine expertise, and tweets about the influence of genes on weight were more likely to come from authors with neither type of expertise. A total of 14.9% (75/504) of the tweets were noted to contain untrue information; these were most likely to occur in the nutrigenomics concepts topic category.
conclusionsBy evaluating social media discourse on precision nutrition on Twitter, we made several observations about the content available in the information environment through which individuals can learn about related concepts and products. Tweet content was consistent with the indicators of medical hype, and the inclusion of potentially misleading and untrue information was common. We identified a contingent of users with scientific and medical expertise who were active in discussing nutrigenomics concepts and products and who may be encouraged to share credible expert advice on precision nutrition and tackle false information as this technology develops.
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.