Cited by 77Nutritional Studies and DietMetabolomics and Mass Spectrometry StudiesNutrition, Genetics, and Disease

Towards nutrition with precision: unlocking biomarkers as dietary assessment tools

Open access
Cuparencu, Cătălina, Bulmuş-Tüccar, Tuğçe, Stanstrup, Jan, La Barbera, Giorgia, Roager, Henrik M., Dragsted, Lars O.·2024·Nature Metabolism

Abstract

Precision nutrition requires precise tools to monitor dietary habits. Yet current dietary assessment instruments are subjective, limiting our understanding of the causal relationships between diet and health. Biomarkers of food intake (BFIs) hold promise to increase the objectivity and accuracy of dietary assessment, enabling adjustment for compliance and misreporting. Here, we update current concepts and provide a comprehensive overview of BFIs measured in urine and blood. We rank BFIs based on a four-level utility scale to guide selection and identify combinations of BFIs that specifically reflect complex food intakes, making them applicable as dietary instruments. We discuss the main challenges in biomarker development and illustrate key solutions for the application of BFIs in human studies, highlighting different strategies for selecting and combining BFIs to support specific study designs. Finally, we present a roadmap for BFI development and implementation to leverage current knowledge and enable precision in nutrition research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s42255-024-01067-y

Cites

122 of 122 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Different assessment methods to measure biomarkers via different kits with varying inter- and intra-assay coefficients of variability influence the overall accuracy of the reported effect estimates.

    “Different assessment methods to measure these biomarkers via different kits with varying inter- and intra-assay coefficients of variability further influence the overall accuracy of the reported effect estimates [176,177].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 123 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cuparencu, C., Bulmuş-Tüccar, T., Stanstrup, J., La Barbera, G., Roager, H. M., & Dragsted, L. O.
Affiliations
University of Copenhagen (DK)
Corresponding author
Cuparencu, Cătălina
Venue
Nature Metabolism
Published
2024-07-02
Volume
6
Issue
8
Pages
1438-1453
ISSN
2522-5812 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4400248433
Cited by
77
References
123
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 9
FWCI
6.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Metabolism (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • International Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Programme 2219 from The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye - TÜBİTAK
  • Novo Nordisk Fonden (NNF19OC0056246)
  • Carlsbergfondet (CF15-0574)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Metabolomics and Mass Spectrometry Studies
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease
Keywords
dietary assessment, personalized nutrition, urinary biomarkers, blood biomarkers, dietary misreporting, biomarker development
MeSH terms
Diet, Eating, Feeding Behavior, Humans, Nutritional Status, Biomarkers, Nutrition Assessment, Precision Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review