Cited by 228Sports Performance and TrainingStatistical Methods in EpidemiologySports Science and Education

A statistical framework to interpret individual response to intervention: paving the way for personalized nutrition and exercise prescription.

Open access
Swinton, Paul A., Hemingway, Ben Stephens, Saunders, Bryan, Gualano, Bruno, Dolan, Eimear·2018·Frontiers in Nutrition

Abstract

The concept of personalized nutrition and exercise prescription represents a topical and exciting progression for the discipline given the large inter-individual variability that exists in response to virtually all performance and health related interventions. Appropriate interpretation of intervention-based data from an individual or group of individuals requires practitioners and researchers to consider a range of concepts including the confounding influence of measurement error and biological variability. In addition, the means to quantify likely statistical and practical improvements are facilitated by concepts such as confidence intervals (CIs) and smallest worthwhile change (SWC). The purpose of this review is to provide accessible and applicable recommendations for practitioners and researchers that interpret, and report personalized data. To achieve this, the review is structured in three sections that progressively develop a statistical framework. Section 1 explores fundamental concepts related to measurement error and describes how typical error and CIs can be used to express uncertainty in baseline measurements. Section 2 builds upon these concepts and demonstrates how CIs can be combined with the concept of SWC to assess whether meaningful improvements occur post-intervention. Finally, section 3 introduces the concept of biological variability and discusses the subsequent challenges in identifying individual response and non-response to an intervention. Worked numerical examples and interactive Supplementary Material are incorporated to solidify concepts and assist with implementation in practice.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3389/fnut.2018.00041

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • There is ongoing vivid discussion on how to define critical thresholds for responders and non-responders and whether further subgroups should be established.

    “There is ongoing vivid discussion on how to define these critical thresholds (Atkinson and Batterham, 2015; Swinton et al., 2018; Atkinson et al., 2019; Dankel and Loenneke, 2019) and whether further subgroups should be established (Dankel and Loenneke, 2019).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Swinton, P. A., Hemingway, B. S., Saunders, B., Gualano, B., & Dolan, E.
Affiliations
  • Robert Gordon University (GB)
  • Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
Corresponding author
Dolan, Eimear
Venue
Frontiers in Nutrition
Published
2018-05-28
Volume
5
Pages
41-41
ISSN
2296-861X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2800372031
Cited by
228
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 6
FWCI
4.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Frontiers in Nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Open Access Institutional Repository at Robert Gordon University (Robert Gordon University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (2015/11328-2, 2017/09635-0, 2013/14746-4, 2016/50438-0, 2017/04973-4)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Sports Science and Education
Keywords
personalized nutrition, exercise prescription, measurement error, biological variation, confidence intervals, smallest worthwhile change, interindividual variability, uncertainty quantification

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