MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139272094 · doi:10.1016/j.jand.2021.02.008

Guiding Global Best Practice in Personalized Nutrition Based on Genetics: The Development of a Nutrigenomics Care Map

2021· article· en· W3139272094 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Justine Horne, Daiva E. Nielsen, Janet Madill, Julie Robitaille, David M. Mutch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicNutrition, Genetics, and Disease
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchInstitut sur la Nutrition et les Aliments Fonctionnels
KeywordsNutrigenomicsMedicineBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Health care providers (HCPs) globally, including dietitians, are encountering genetic testing for personalized nutrition (ie, nutrigenomics) in their clinical practice. Although considerable basic research examining diet–gene interactions exists in the literature, comparatively less knowledge is available regarding the use of nutrigenomics in clinical practice to alter dietary outcomes. Despite this, patients are bringing direct-to-consumer nutrigenomics reports to HCPs for interpretation, and more HCPs are now offering nutrigenomics tests to their patients.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations26
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Academy of Nutrition and DieteticsSame topicNutrition, Genetics, and DiseaseFrench-language works237,207