↓ Skip to main content

Proposed guidelines to evaluate scientific validity and evidence for genotype-based dietary advice

Overview of attention for article published in Genes & Nutrition, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#7 of 366)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (95th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
1 blog
twitter
51 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 Mendeley
Title
Proposed guidelines to evaluate scientific validity and evidence for genotype-based dietary advice
Published in
Genes & Nutrition, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12263-017-0584-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Keith A. Grimaldi, Ben van Ommen, Jose M. Ordovas, Laurence D. Parnell, John C. Mathers, Igor Bendik, Lorraine Brennan, Carlos Celis-Morales, Elisa Cirillo, Hannelore Daniel, Brenda de Kok, Ahmed El-Sohemy, Susan J. Fairweather-Tait, Rosalind Fallaize, Michael Fenech, Lynnette R. Ferguson, Eileen R. Gibney, Mike Gibney, Ingrid M. F. Gjelstad, Jim Kaput, Anette S. Karlsen, Silvia Kolossa, Julie Lovegrove, Anna L. Macready, Cyril F. M. Marsaux, J. Alfredo Martinez, Fermin Milagro, Santiago Navas-Carretero, Helen M. Roche, Wim H. M. Saris, Iwona Traczyk, Henk van Kranen, Lars Verschuren, Fabio Virgili, Peter Weber, Jildau Bouwman

Abstract

Nutrigenetic research examines the effects of inter-individual differences in genotype on responses to nutrients and other food components, in the context of health and of nutrient requirements. A practical application of nutrigenetics is the use of personal genetic information to guide recommendations for dietary choices that are more efficacious at the individual or genetic subgroup level relative to generic dietary advice. Nutrigenetics is unregulated, with no defined standards, beyond some commercially adopted codes of practice. Only a few official nutrition-related professional bodies have embraced the subject, and, consequently, there is a lack of educational resources or guidance for implementation of the outcomes of nutrigenetic research. To avoid misuse and to protect the public, personalised nutrigenetic advice and information should be based on clear evidence of validity grounded in a careful and defensible interpretation of outcomes from nutrigenetic research studies. Evidence requirements are clearly stated and assessed within the context of state-of-the-art 'evidence-based nutrition'. We have developed and present here a draft framework that can be used to assess the strength of the evidence for scientific validity of nutrigenetic knowledge and whether 'actionable'. In addition, we propose that this framework be used as the basis for developing transparent and scientifically sound advice to the public based on nutrigenetic tests. We feel that although this area is still in its infancy, minimal guidelines are required. Though these guidelines are based on semi-quantitative data, they should stimulate debate on their utility. This framework will be revised biennially, as knowledge on the subject increases.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 51 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 163 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 31 19%
Student > Master 29 18%
Student > Bachelor 22 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 9%
Other 11 7%
Other 25 15%
Unknown 30 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 27 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 24 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 22 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 20 12%
Sports and Recreations 5 3%
Other 22 13%
Unknown 43 26%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 51. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 March 2021.
All research outputs
#523,606
of 17,986,329 outputs
Outputs from Genes & Nutrition
#7
of 366 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#18,240
of 419,260 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genes & Nutrition
#2
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,986,329 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 366 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 419,260 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.