Cited by 115Nutrition, Genetics, and DiseaseNutritional Studies and DietNutrition, Health, and Society Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 5 of the 23 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Effect of an Internet-based, personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes associated with the Mediterranean diet: the Food4Me Study

Open access

Abstract

Background Little is known about the efficacy of personalized nutrition (PN) interventions for improving consumption of a Mediterranean diet (MedDiet).Objective The objective was to evaluate the effect of a PN intervention on dietary changes associated with the MedDiet.Design Participants (n = 1607) were recruited into a 6-mo, Internet-based, PN randomized controlled trial (Food4Me) designed to evaluate the effect of PN on dietary change. Participants were randomly assigned to receive conventional dietary advice [control; level 0 (L0)] or PN advice on the basis of current diet [level 1 (L1)], diet and phenotype [level 2 (L2)], or diet, phenotype, and genotype [level 3 (L3)]. Dietary intakes from food-frequency questionnaires at baseline and at 6 mo were converted to a MedDiet score. Linear regression compared participant characteristics between high (>5) and low (≤5) MedDiet scores. Differences in MedDiet scores between treatment arms at month 6 were evaluated by using contrast analyses.Results At baseline, high MedDiet scorers had a 0.5 lower body mass index (in kg/m(2); P = 0.007) and a 0.03 higher physical activity level (P = 0.003) than did low scorers. MedDiet scores at month 6 were greater in individuals randomly assigned to receive PN (L1, L2, and L3) than in controls (PN compared with controls: 5.20 ± 0.05 and 5.48 ± 0.07, respectively; P = 0.002). There was no significant difference in MedDiet scores at month 6 between PN advice on the basis of L1 compared with L2 and L3. However, differences in MedDiet scores at month 6 were greater in L3 than in L2 (L3 compared with L2: 5.63 ± 0.10 and 5.38 ± 0.10, respectively; P = 0.029).Conclusions Higher MedDiet scores at baseline were associated with healthier lifestyles and lower adiposity. After the intervention, MedDiet scores were greater in individuals randomly assigned to receive PN than in controls, with the addition of DNA-based dietary advice resulting in the largest differences in MedDiet scores. Although differences were significant, their clinical relevance is modest. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT01530139.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In the Food4Me 6-month internet-based randomized trial, personalized nutrition advice improved Mediterranean diet (MD) scores compared with conventional advice, and adding genotype-based advice produced the largest improvement. The authors conclude the differences were statistically significant but of modest clinical relevance.

Key findings

  • At baseline, high MD scorers (>5) had 0.5 kg/m² lower BMI (P=0.007), weighed 2.3 kg less (P=0.003), had 1.9 cm lower waist circumference (P<0.001), and had higher physical activity level (P=0.003) than low scorers (≤5).
  • At month 6, MD scores were greater in personalized nutrition arms than Control: Table 3 reports PN 5.48 ± 0.07 vs Control 5.20 ± 0.05 (P=0.002); the abstract/results sentence labels these means in the reverse order.
  • L3 (diet + phenotype + genotype) had a greater month-6 MD score than L2 (diet + phenotype): 5.63 ± 0.10 vs 5.38 ± 0.10 (P=0.029); L1 did not differ significantly from L2+L3 (P=0.46).
  • The PN vs Control effect was significant in non-Mediterranean countries only (PN 5.31 ± 0.09 vs Control 5.02 ± 0.06, P=0.007); in the Netherlands, L3 exceeded L2 (P=0.013).

Methods

  • 6-month, 4-arm, internet-based randomized controlled trial across 7 European countries; 1607 participants were randomized, 1480 provided baseline dietary data, and 1270 had 6-month outcome dietary data. Arms were Control (L0, conventional advice), L1 (personalized advice based on diet), L2 (diet + phenotype), and L3 (diet + phenotype + genotype).
  • Dietary intake was assessed by online food frequency questionnaire at baseline and 6 months and converted to a PREDIMED 14-point MD score (range 0–14). Linear mixed models with contrast analyses were adjusted for baseline age, sex, and country; sensitivity analyses used intention-to-treat last observation carried forward and complete-case approaches.

Limitations

  • Stated by the authors: self-measured/self-reported internet data may introduce measurement error; FFQ data are subject to misreporting; small sample size limited power to investigate individual genes; 97% of participants were Caucasian; the sample was self-selected and possibly more health-conscious; and the trial did not aim to change MD scores specifically.
  • Evident in the text: the authors state the clinical relevance of the ~0.5-unit MD score advantage is modest, and the abstract/results sentence appears to reverse the PN and Control means relative to Table 3.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3945/ajcn.115.129049

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

54 Own result · 21 Own method · 12 Not checked yet · 12 Own interpretation · 2 Supported · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured

Verify all 18 references — free account

Show all 66 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 17
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 20
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1
36 of 36
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The efficacy of personalized nutrition interventions for improving Mediterranean diet consumption is largely unknown.

    “Little is known about the efficacy of personalized nutrition (PN) interventions for improving consumption of a Mediterranean diet (MD).”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No prior studies have examined how different PN levels affect MD score differences.

    “To our knowledge, no previous studies have evaluated the effect of different levels of PN on difference in MD score.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The Food4Me PoP study was the first to test genotype-based PN effects on overall healthy eating patterns.

    “Previous PN interventions have achieved improvements in sodium intake in individuals at higher genotypic-based risk (20), however, the Food4Me PoP study was the first to examine the effect of including genotype-based PN on overall patterns of healthy eating.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The PREDIMED-based Mediterranean diet score is a valid measure of adherence to the Mediterranean diet.

    “Scoring system for the PREDIMED-based Mediterranean diet (MD) score”
4 of 4

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?

Self-check

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

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

1 retracted

Show all 39 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Livingstone, K. M., Celis-Morales, C., Navas-Carretero, S., San-Cristobal, R., Macready, A. L., Fallaize, R., Forster, H., Woolhead, C., O’Donovan, C. B., Marsaux, C. F., Kolossa, S., Tsirigoti, L., Lambrinou, C. P., Moschonis, G., Godlewska, M., Surwiłło, A., Drevon, C. A., Manios, Y., Traczyk, I., Gibney, E. R., Brennan, L., Walsh, M. C., Lovegrove, J. A., Saris, W. H., Daniel, H., Gibney, M., Martinez, J. A., & Mathers, J. C.
Affiliations
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • University of Reading (GB)
  • University College Dublin (IE)
  • Maastricht University Medical Centre (NL)
  • Technical University of Munich (DE)
  • Harokopio University of Athens (GR)
  • Instytut Zywnosci Zywienia (PL)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Venue
The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-08
Volume
104
Issue
2
Pages
288-297
ISSN
0002-9165 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2470176231
Cited by
115
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 3
FWCI
9.95
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • CentAUR (University of Reading) (acceptedVersion)
  • ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (acceptedVersion)
  • University of Hertfordshire Research Archive (University of Hertfordshire) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research Publications (Maastricht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
  • European Commission (265494)
  • Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Genetics › Nutrition, Genetics, and Disease
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Nutrition, Health, and Society Studies
Keywords
personalized nutrition, Mediterranean diet, dietary recommendations, online intervention, phenotypic biomarkers, dietary intake, body mass index, physical activity, lifestyle intervention, dietary adherence, food enjoyment, eating satisfaction
MeSH terms
Adult, Counseling, Diet Surveys, Feeding Behavior, Female, Genotype, Health Promotion, Humans, Life Style, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Patient Education as Topic, Phenotype, Exercise, Body Mass Index, Genetic Predisposition to Disease, Internet, Diet, Mediterranean, 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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

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