MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3112014061 · doi:10.1159/000511785

Healthcare Professional Clinical Actions following Nutrigenomics Testing in Practice

2020· article· en· W3112014061 on OpenAlexaff
Irem Karamanoglu, Daiva E. Nielsen

Bibliographic record

VenuePublic Health Genomics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNutrition, Genetics, and Disease
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNutrigenomicsHealth careMedicineClinical PracticeHealth professionalsNursingPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Clinical demand for nutrigenomics testing (NGT) is increasing, underscoring the importance of assessing healthcare professional (HCP) competence and clinical actions with NGT in practice. While previous studies have explored HCP perceptions of NGT, no study has examined real HCP experiences with NGT in practice. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the clinical experience of providing NGT among early adopter HCPs who have used NGT in their practice. We hypothesized that HCP clinical actions after NGT would differ according to HCP personal experience undergoing genetic testing (GT) as well as years in practice. DESIGN: An online survey questionnaire was administered to HCPs (n = 70) who have provided NGT in practice. χ2 tests, tests for trend, and logistic regression were used to compare HCP characteristics with post-NGT outcomes. RESULTS: HCPs with fewest years in practice (<5 years) comprised the lowest proportion of respondents (16%). Most HCPs reported good understanding of NGT results and 92% made genetic-based dietary recommendations to patients following NGT. HCP personal use of GT increased significantly with increasing years in practice (<5 years: 36%, 5-10 years: 53%, 11-20 years: 70%, and >20 years: 85%, p trend = 0.003). Requesting patient bloodwork because of NGT results increased significantly with HCP years in practice when HCPs with <5 years in practice were not considered (5-10 years: 19%, 11-20 years: 28%, and >20 years: 60%, p trend = 0.010). A near significant difference was observed where a greater proportion of HCPs who had personally undergone GT reported requesting patient bloodwork (personal use: 46% vs. no personal use: 23%, p-χ2 = 0.066). CONCLUSION: Early HCP adopters of NGT utilize the test results to provide genetic-based dietary recommendations to patients. Clinical action after NGT currently appears to be driven by HCP years in practice, but HCP personal use of GT may also be a factor.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.040
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.040
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.171
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.253 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePublic Health GenomicsSame topicNutrition, Genetics, and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207