A Comprehensive Systematic Review of Dynamic Nutrient Profiling for Personalized Diet Planning: Meta-Analysis and PRISMA-Based Evidence Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and Objectives: Dynamic nutrient profiling represents a paradigm shift in personalized nutrition, integrating real-time nutritional assessment with individualized dietary recommendations through advanced algorithmic approaches, biomarker integration, and artificial intelligence. This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis examines the current state of dynamic nutrient profiling methodologies for personalized diet planning, evaluating their effectiveness, methodological quality, and clinical outcomes. Methods: Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and Google Scholar) from inception to December 2024. The protocol was prospectively registered in PROSPERO (Registration: CRD42024512893). Studies were systematically screened using predefined inclusion criteria, quality was assessed using validated tools (RoB 2, ROBINS-I, Newcastle–Ottawa Scale), and data were extracted using standardized forms. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed where appropriate, with heterogeneity assessed using I2 statistics. Publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger’s test. Results: From 2847 initially identified records plus 156 from additional sources, 117 studies met the inclusion criteria after removing 391 duplicates and systematic screening, representing 45,672 participants across 28 countries. Studies employed various methodological approaches: algorithmic-based profiling systems (76 studies), biomarker-integrated approaches (45 studies), and AI-enhanced personalized nutrition platforms (23 studies), with some studies utilizing multiple methodologies. Meta-analysis revealed significant improvements in dietary quality measures (standardized mean difference: 1.24, 95% CI: 0.89–1.59, p < 0.001), dietary adherence (risk ratio: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.18–1.52, p < 0.001), and clinical outcomes including weight reduction (mean difference: −2.8 kg, 95% CI: −4.2 to −1.4, p < 0.001) and improved cardiovascular risk markers. Substantial heterogeneity was observed across studies (I2 = 78–92%), attributed to methodological diversity and population characteristics. AI-enhanced systems demonstrated superior effectiveness (SMD = 1.67) compared to traditional algorithmic approaches (SMD = 1.08). However, current evidence is constrained by practical limitations, including the technological accessibility of dynamic profiling systems and equity concerns in vulnerable populations. Additionally, the evidence base shows geographical concentration, with most studies conducted in high-income countries, underscoring the need for research in diverse global settings. These findings have significant implications for shaping public health policies and clinical guidelines aimed at integrating personalized nutrition into healthcare systems and addressing dietary disparities at the population level. Conclusions: Dynamic nutrient profiling demonstrates significant promise for advancing personalized nutrition interventions, with robust evidence supporting improved nutritional and clinical outcomes. However, methodological standardization, long-term validation studies exceeding six months, and comprehensive cost-effectiveness analyses remain critical research priorities. The integration of artificial intelligence and multi-omics data represents the future direction of this rapidly evolving field.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".