Perceptions of Genetic Testing for Personalized Nutrition: A Randomized Trial of DNA-Based Dietary Advice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS: Direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic tests have facilitated easy access to personal genetic information related to health and nutrition; however, consumer perceptions of the nutritional information provided by these tests have not been evaluated. The objectives of this study were to assess individual perceptions of personalized nutrition and genetic testing and to determine whether a personalized nutrition intervention modifies perceptions. METHODS: A double-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial was conducted among healthy men and women aged 20-35 years (n = 138). Participants in the intervention group (n = 92) were given a report of DNA-based dietary advice and those in the control group (n = 46) were given a general dietary advice report. A survey was completed at baseline and 3 and 12 months after distributing the reports to assess perceptions between the two groups. RESULTS: No significant differences in perceptions of personalized nutrition and genetic testing were observed between the intervention and control group, so responses of both groups were combined. As compared to baseline, participant responses increased significantly toward the positive end of a Likert scale at 3 months for the statement 'I am interested in the relationship between diet and genetics' (mean change ± SD: 0.28 ± 0.99, p = 0.0002). The majority of participants indicated that a university research lab (47%) or health care professional (41%) were the best sources for obtaining accurate personal genetic information, while a DTC genetic testing company received the fewest selections (12%). Most participants (56%) considered dietitians to be the best source of personalized nutrition followed by medical doctors (27%), naturopaths (8%) and nurses (6%). CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that perceptions of personalized nutrition changed over the course of the intervention. Individuals view a research lab or health care professional as better providers of genetic information than a DTC genetic testing company, and registered dietitians are considered to be the best providers of personalized nutrition advice.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".