Genome–Environment Interactions and Prospective Technology Assessment: Evolution from Pharmacogenomics to Nutrigenomics and Ecogenomics
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The relationships between food, nutrition science, and health outcomes have been mapped over the past century. Genomic variation among individuals and populations is a new factor that enriches and challenges our understanding of these complex relationships. Hence, the confluence of nutritional science and genomics-nutrigenomics--was the focus of the OMICS: A Journal of Integrative Biology in December 2008 (Part 1). The 2009 Special Issue (Part 2) concludes the analysis of nutrigenomics research and innovations. Together, these two issues expand the scope and depth of critical scholarship in nutrigenomics, in keeping with an integrated multidisciplinary analysis across the bioscience, omics technology, social, ethical, intellectual property and policy dimensions. Historically, the field of pharmacogenetics provided the first examples of specifically identifiable gene variants predisposing to unexpected responses to drugs since the 1950s. Brewer coined the term ecogenetics in 1971 to broaden the concept of gene-environment interactions from drugs and nutrition to include environmental agents in general. In the mid-1990s, introduction of high-throughput technologies led to the terms pharmacogenomics, nutrigenomics and ecogenomics to describe, respectively, the contribution of genomic variability to differential responses to drugs, food, and environment defined in the broadest sense. The distinctions, if any, between these newer fields (e.g., nutrigenomics) and their predecessors (e.g., nutrigenetics) remain to be delineated. For nutrigenomics, its reliance on genome-wide analyses may lead to detection of new biological mechanisms governing host response to food. Recognizing "genome-environment interactions" as the conceptual thread that connects and runs through pharmacogenomics, nutrigenomics, and ecogenomics may contribute toward anticipatory governance and prospective real-time analysis of these omics fields. Such real-time analysis of omics technologies and innovations is crucial, because it can influence and positively shape them as these approaches develop, and help avoid predictable pitfalls, and thus ensure their effective and ethical application in the laboratory, clinic, and society.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.065 | 0.098 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".