Assessing the effectiveness of actionable nutrigenomics and lifestyle genomics interventions for weight management in clinical practice: A critical, scoping review with directions for future research
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The use of nutrigenomics and lifestyle genomics in clinical practice has the potential to optimize weight-related outcomes for patients. Aim: A scoping review was conducted to summarize and evaluate the current body of knowledge related to the effectiveness of providing DNA-based lifestyle advice on weight-related outcomes, with the aim of providing direction for future research. Method: Primary studies were included if they were written in English, evaluated weight-related and/or body mass index and/or body composition outcomes, and provided participants with an actionable genetic-based lifestyle intervention; interventions that only provided information on genetic risk for diseases/conditions were excluded. Data was extracted from each article meeting inclusion criteria ( N=3) and the studies were critically appraised for methodological limitations. Results: Research in this area is promising, but limited. Specific limitations relate to study designs, the nature of the recommendations provided to participants, small (underpowered) sample sizes, the use of self-reported weight/BMI data and lack of consideration of important confounding factors. Conclusions: Therefore, the effectiveness of nutrigenomics and lifestyle genomics interventions for weight management in clinical practice cannot yet be conclusively determined. Recommendations for future research are detailed in the present manuscript.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it