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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
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
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Comparison with other studies
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [20] Nielsen, 2014, Disclosure of genetic information and change in dietary intake: a randomized controlled trial, PLoS One source
The Results (Changes in Dietary Intakes) report that, at 12 months, participants informed they carried a risk version of the ACE gene and given targeted sodium advice significantly reduced sodium intake compared with controls (p = 0.008). This supports the cited clause about an earlier genotype-based personalized-nutrition intervention improving sodium intake in higher-risk individuals; the Food4Me claim is not attributed to this source. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At baseline, high MD scorers had 0.5 kg/m 2 lower BMI (P=0.007) and 0.03 higher PAL (P=0.003)than low scorers.”
- Also stated in: § Socio-demographic, anthropometric and health-related characteristics by MD score · plain
“High MD scorers weighed 2.3 kg less (P=0.003), had 0.5 kg/m 2 lower BMI (P=0.007) and 1.9 cm lower WC (P<0.001) than low scorers (Table 1).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Socio-demographic, anthropometric and health-related characteristics by MD score · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, differences in MD scores at month 6 were greater in L3 vs. L2 (L3: 5.63 ± 0.10 vs. L2: 5.38 ± 0.10 respectively; P=0.029).”
- Also stated in: § Differences in MD scores following intervention · plain
“However, MD scores at month 6 for participants receiving PN advice in L3 (diet + phenotype + genotype) were greater than in participants in L2 at month 6 (L3: 5.63 ± 0.10 vs. L2: 5.38 ± 0.10, respectively, P=0.029; Table 3).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Differences in MD scores following intervention · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MD scores at month 6 in participants receiving PN advice based on current diet alone (L1) were not significantly different from those randomized to L2 and L3 (who received advice based on current diet + phenotype (L2) and diet + phenotype + genotype (L3); Table 3).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Differences in MD scores following intervention
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MD scores at month 3 between interventions arms were lower in those randomized to L2 compared with L3 (P=0.010;Supplemental Table 3).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Differences in MD scores following intervention
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the Netherlands only, MD scores was higher for L3 participants than for L2 participants (P=0.013;Supplemental Table 4).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Differences in MD scores following intervention
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For FTO and MTHFR genes, MD score at month 6 was higher in individuals randomized to PN compared with the Control in riskcarriers only.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Sensitivity analyses
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When Mediterranean (Greece and Spain) and non-Mediterranean countries (the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany and Poland) were grouped, the effect of PN (mean L1, L2 and L3) vs.Control on MD scores at month 6 was significant in non-Mediterranean countries only (PN: 5.31 ± 0.09 vs. Control: 5.02 ± 0.06; P=0.007; data not shown).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Differences in MD scores following intervention
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MD scores at month 6 were greater in individuals randomized to PN (L1, L2 and L3) compared with Control (PN: 5.20 ± 0.05 vs. Control: 5.48 ± 0.07 respectively; P=0.002).”
- Also stated in: § Differences in MD scores following intervention · plain
“After 6 months intervention, improvements in MD scores were greater in individuals randomized to PN (mean L1, L2 and L3) compared with Control (L0) (PN: 5.20 ± 0.05 vs. Control: 5.48 ± 0.07, respectively, P=0.002; Table 3).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Results
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Differences in MD scores following intervention · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“High MD scorers weighed 2.3 kg less (P=0.003), had 0.5 kg/m 2 lower BMI (P=0.007) and 1.9 cm lower WC (P<0.001) than low scorers (Table 1).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Socio-demographic, anthropometric and health-related characteristics by MD score
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 17
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Dietary intakes were estimated by a FFQ which is subject to misreporting error (46) but this was minimized by prior validation against a 4-day weighed food record (31).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Strengths and limitations
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [46] Macdiarmid, 1998, Assessing dietary intake: who, what and why of under-reporting, Nutr Res Rev source
The citation to this paper (46) supports the statement that an FFQ is subject to misreporting error. In the “Unintentional under-reporting” section, the paper says that food-frequency questionnaires rely on memory and that recall errors can contribute to under-reporting. The separate claim about validation against a 4-day weighed food record is cited to reference 31, not to this paper. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Partly supportedcites [31] Fallaize, 2014, Online dietary intake estimation: reproducibility and validity of the Food4Me Food frequency questionnaire against a 4-day weighed food record, J Med Internet Res sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion (page unavailable) reports moderate agreement between the Food4Me FFQ and a 4-day weighed food record, confirming that the FFQ had been validated against that record. The paper does not show that prior validation itself minimized misreporting error; its Discussion also reports underreporting in both methods. (LLM, conf=0.84)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational by Sofi et al. (2010) found that a 2point increase (10 point scale) in adherence to the MD was associated with a significant reduction of overall mortality [relative risk (RR) = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.90, 0.94], cardiovascular incidence or mortality (RR = 0.90; 95% CI: 0.87, 0.93) and cancer incidence or mortality (RR = 0.94; 95% CI: 0.92, 0.96) (5).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Implications of findings
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Sofi et al. (2010) source
Split into 2 atoms — 2 confirmed, 0 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
- Supportedcites [5] Sofi, 2010, Accruing evidence on benefits of adherence to the Mediterranean diet on health: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis, Am J Clin Nutr source
The Meta-analysis section reports the association for a 2-point increase in Mediterranean-diet adherence and gives exactly the three relative risks and confidence intervals cited for all-cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and cancer. The Abstract also identifies the underlying studies as prospective cohorts. (LLM, conf=0.95)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At baseline, high MD scorers had 0.5 kg/m 2 lower BMI (P=0.007) and 0.03 higher PAL (P=0.003)than low scorers.”
- Also stated in: § Socio-demographic, anthropometric and health-related characteristics by MD score · plain
“High MD scorers spent less time in sedentary behaviors (P=0.005), had higher PAL (P=0.003) and MVPA (P<0.001) and met more PA recommendations (P=0.022)than low scorers (Table 1).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Results
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Also stated in: § Socio-demographic, anthropometric and health-related characteristics by MD score · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On average, 6% fewer high MD scorers were on prescribed medication (P=0.004)than low scorers.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Socio-demographic, anthropometric and health-related characteristics by MD score
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants with a high MD score at baseline were on average 1.5 years older than those with a low score (P=0.005).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Socio-demographic, anthropometric and health-related characteristics by MD score
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“We confirmed findings from the PREDIMED study, showing that individuals with low MD adherence were more likely to be current smokers, have higher BMI and WC and lower PA (10,18).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Comparison with other studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Beunza, 2010, Adherence to the Mediterranean diet, long-term weight change, and incident overweight or obesity: the Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra (SUN) cohort, Am J Clin Nutr source
- Not checked yetcites [18] Hu, 2013, Lifestyles and risk factors associated with adherence to the Mediterranean diet: a baseline assessment of the PREDIMED trial, PLoS One source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As summarized in Supplemental Table 7, disclosure of genetic information made little difference to MD score at month 6 for individuals randomized to PN compared with the Control, although differences were apparent between L2 and L3.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Sensitivity analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“As reported by Hu et al. (18), we also observed that older individuals were slightly more likely to have higher PREDIMED scores.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Comparison with other studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hu et al. (18) Hu, 2013, Lifestyles and risk factors associated with adherence to the Mediterranean diet: a baseline assessment of the PREDIMED trial, PLoS One source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our study facilitated the comparison of PN intervention across 7 European countries, which showed that differences in MD scores between treatment arms were only evident in non-Mediterranean countries.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Comparison with other studies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The effect of PN on MD score at month 6 was similar for risk and non-risk carriers for APOE and TCF7L2 but was only significant for non-risk carriers of FADS1 (Supplemental Table 6).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Sensitivity analyses
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, no significant differences in MD between PN and Control were observed in individuals carrying one or no copies of the risk alleles for any of the 5 genes and no significant differences between levels of PN were observed (data not shown).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Sensitivity analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“MD score at month 6 | 5.20 ± 0.05 | 5.48 ± 0.07 | 5.43 ± 0.10 | 5.38 ± 0.10 | 5.63 ± 0.10 | 0.002 | 0.46 | 0.029”
- Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
“MD score at month 6 | 5.26 ± 0.07 | 5.49 ± 0.04 | 5.44 ± 0.07 | 5.39 ± 0.07 | 5.64 ± 0.07 | 0.004 | 0.41 | 0.011”
- Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
“MD score at month 6 | 5.31 ± 0.08 | 5.59 ± 0.05 | 5.54 ± 0.08 | 5.49 ± 0.08 | 5.73 ± 0.08 | 0.003 | 0.46 | 0.029”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Conclusions
plainn = 1,480 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Additional information · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Netherlands (n=220) | 5.24 | 5.45 | 5.38 | 5.18 | 5.79 | 0.29 | 0.62 | 0.013”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Additional information
plainn = 220 ·- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results showed that the pattern of significant findings were consistent across LMM, LOCF and CC analysis and that use of LMM produced the most conservative estimate of MD score at month 6 (Supplemental Table 5).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Sensitivity analyses
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Research Ethics Committees at each University or Research Centre delivering the intervention granted ethical approval for the study.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Ethical approval and participant consent
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Based on sample size calculations we aimed to recruit a total of 1,540 study participants.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Eligibility criteria
plainn = 1,540- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our participants were drawn from 7 European countries, facilitating the comparison of MD between Mediterranean and non-Mediterranean countries.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Strengths and limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Participants exposed to the MD-based intervention increased consumption of olive oil, nuts, vegetables, legumes and fruit and reduced consumption of meat and pastries, cakes and sweets, thus improving overall dietary patterns and supporting the use of PN in facilitating change towards a Mediterranean-style diet.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Comparison with other studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [45] Zazpe, 2008, A large randomized individual and group intervention conducted by registered dietitians increased adherence to Mediterranean-type diets: the PREDIMED study, J Am Diet Assoc source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Food4Me trial was registered as a RCT (NCT01530139) at Clinicaltrials.gov.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Ethical approval and participant consent
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, 97% of our study participants were Caucasians and thus research in wider ethnicity groups is required to generalize our findings to other populations.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Strengths and limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Self-reported measurements were validated in a sub-sample of the participants (n=140) and showed a high degree of reliability (37)”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Anthropometric, socio-demographic and physical activity measures
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [37] Celis-Morales, 2015, How reliable is internet-based self-reported identity, socio-demographic and obesity measures in European adults?, Genes Nutr source
plainn = 140- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Food4Me proof-of-principle (PoP) study was the first internetbased study to demonstrate that PN advice was more effective in improving dietary intakes, including lowering intakes of red meat and improving diet quality when compared with conventional”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] Food4Me. Personalised nutrition: opportunities and challenges [cited 2015 Dec 14]. Available from: http://www.food4me.org/news/207-white-paper
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings support the beneficial effect a MD on dietary quality, as evidenced by lower intakes of SFA and higher intakes of MUFA and PUFA and more individuals meeting foodbased dietary recommendations.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Comparison with other studies
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To address these aims, participants were randomized to one of four intervention arms using an urn randomization scheme (27) and received either nonpersonalized, generalized dietary advice (Control; Level 0), or one of three levels of PN.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Study design
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Wei, 1988, Properties of the urn randomization in clinical trials, Control Clin Trials source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The latter identified 14 dietary components that best characterized the MD and demonstrated that higher MD scores were associated with up to 30% lower incidence of cardiovascular events (15,17).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Razquin, 2010, A 3-year intervention with a Mediterranean diet modified the association between the rs9939609 gene variant in FTO and body weight changes, Int J Obes (Lond) source
- Not checked yetcites [17] Ros, 2014, Mediterranean diet and cardiovascular health: teachings of the PREDIMED study, Adv Nutr source
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, internet-based approaches offer significant opportunities for scaling up PN interventions in a cost effective manner.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Implications of findings
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our sample is a self-selected group of individuals, who may be more health-conscious than the general population.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Strengths and limitations
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the Food4Me PoP study did not aim to change MD scores specifically, rather overall diet, which may indirectly have improved MD scores.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Strengths and limitations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Participants randomised into one of the 4 arms on the intervention n=1607”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Conclusions
plainn = 1,607- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“linear mixed models were adjusted for baseline age, sex and country.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we used a linear mixed model (LMM) with fixed effects for participants with time-point (baseline and follow-up), baseline age, sex and country as covariates.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Conclusions
plainn = 1,480- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Study design and sample size estimation required n=1607 only”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Conclusions
plainn = 1,607- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Baseline characteristics of participants who completed the intervention and those who dropped out by month 61Multiple linear regression and logistic regression were used to test for significant differences between groups in continuous and categorical variables, respectively.Analyses were adjusted for age, sex and country.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Additional information
plainn = 1,270- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To remove treatment differences at baseline the parameter estimates (treatment arms) were specified at month 6 only.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Data were analyzed using Stata (version 13; StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) based on intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of all individuals randomized into the intervention with baseline data (n=1480).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Conclusions
plainn = 1,480- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additional sensitivity analyses adjusted for over-and under-reporters of total energy intake: underreporting was operationalized as energy intake less than BMR*1.1 (42), where BMR was calculated according to the Oxford equation”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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”
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?
In the citing paper
“Improvement in Mediterranean diet adherence was much more significant than those achieved by previous technology-based Mediterranean diet interventions [40,41].”
From A Physical Activity and Diet Program Delivered by Artificially Intelligent Virtual Health Coach: Proof-of-Concept Study (2020) · cites this paper as [41]
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Results
“MD scores at month 6 were greater in individuals randomized to PN (L1, L2 and L3) compared with Control (PN: 5.20 ± 0.05 vs. Control: 5.48 ± 0.07 respectively; P=0.002).”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Conclusions
“| MD score at month 6 | 5.20 ± 0.05 | 5.48 ± 0.07 | 5.43 ± 0.10 | 5.38 ± 0.10 | 5.63 ± 0.10 | 0.002 | 0.46 | 0.029 |”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Sensitivity analyses
“For FTO and MTHFR genes, MD score at month 6 was higher in individuals randomized to PN compared with the Control in riskcarriers only.”
§ Effect of an internet-based personalized nutrition randomized trial on dietary changes > Conclusions
“| Risk (n=809) | 5.59 ± 0.10 | 5.59 ± 0.10 | 5.52 ± 0.13 | 5.50 ± 0.13 | 5.75 ± 0.13 | 0.006 | 0.47 | 0.10 |”
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
RETRACTED: Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet
Estruch, R., Ros, E., Salas-Salvadó, J., Covas, M.-I., Corella, D., Arós, F., Gómez-Gracia, E., Ruiz-Gutiérrez, V., Fiol, M., Lapetra, J., et al. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1200303 · Cited by 4,257
Self-citationRetractedde Lorgeril, M., Salen, P., Martin, J.-L., Monjaud, I., Delaye, J., & Mamelle, N. (1999) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/01.cir.99.6.779 · Cited by 2,910
Origins and evolution of the Western diet: health implications for the 21st century1,2
Cordain, L., Eaton, S. B., Sebastian, A., Mann, N., Lindeberg, S., Watkins, B. A., O’Keefe, J. H., & Brand-Miller, J. (2005) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn.81.2.341 · Cited by 2,397
McCance and Widdowson's The Composition of Foods
England, P. H. (2002) · Royal Society of Chemistry eBooks · doi:10.1039/9781849735551 · Cited by 2,209
Goldberg, G. R., Black, A., Jebb, S. A., Cole, T. J., Pr, M., Coward, W. A., & Prentice, A. M. (1991) · PubMed · Cited by 1,927
Michie, S., Ashford, S., Sniehotta, F. F., Dombrowski, S. U., Bishop, A., & French, D. P. (2011) · Psychology & Health · doi:10.1080/08870446.2010.540664 · Cited by 1,756
Sofi, F., Abbate, R., Gensini, G. F., & Casini, A. (2010) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.2010.29673 · Cited by 1,605
Hill, J. O., Wyatt, H. R., & Peters, J. C. (2012) · Circulation · doi:10.1161/circulationaha.111.087213 · Cited by 1,317
Basal metabolic rate studies in humans: measurement and development of new equations
Henry, C. (2005) · Public Health Nutrition · doi:10.1079/phn2005801 · Cited by 1,033 · cited 1×
“1 (42), where BMR was calculated according to the Oxford equation (43) and overreporting as an intake .”
MethodUsing Internet technology to deliver a behavioral weight loss program
Tate, D. F. (2001) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.285.9.1172 · Cited by 925 · cited 1×
“Furthermore, Internet-based dietary interventions offer the advantage of being scalable and more cost-effective than face-to-face interventions (23).”
Background
Cited by
Sorted by citations
de Toro‐Martín, J., Arsenault, B. J., Després, J., & Vohl, M. (2017) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu9080913 · Cited by 534
“This type of study design was applied to test the efficacy of personalized nutritional advices for improving consumption of a Mediterranean diet [89], that was estimated on the basis of the PREDIMED 14-item questionnaire [42,154].”
MethodSport Nutrigenomics: Personalized Nutrition for Athletic Performance
Guest, N. S., Horne, J. R., Vanderhout, S. M., & El‐Sohemy, A. (2019) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2019.00008 · Cited by 199
Ramos-López, O., Milagro, F. I., Allayee, H., Chmurzyńska, A., Choi, M. S., Curi, R., Caterina, R. D., Ferguson, L. R., Goñi, L., Kang, J. X., et al. (2017) · Lifestyle Genomics · doi:10.1159/000477729 · Cited by 172
Maher, C. A., Davis, C. R., Curtis, R. G., Short, C. E., & Murphy, K. J. (2020) · JMIR mHealth and uHealth · doi:10.2196/17558 · Cited by 165
“Improvement in Mediterranean diet adherence was much more significant than those achieved by previous technology-based Mediterranean diet interventions [40,41].”
ResultJinnette, R., Narita, A., Manning, B., McNaughton, S. A., Mathers, J. C., & Livingstone, K. M. (2020) · Advances in Nutrition · doi:10.1093/advances/nmaa144 · Cited by 160
“Studies were conducted in the United States, Canada, or Europe; reported outcomes on 57 to 1488 participants; and varied in followup duration from 1 to 12 mo.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citation
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)
- ORCID
- Livingstone, Katherine M
- Celis-Morales, Carlos
- Macready, Anna L
- Fallaize, Rosalind
- Forster, Hannah
- Woolhead, Clara
- O’Donovan, Clare B
- Marsaux, Cyril FM
- Kolossa, Silvia
- Lambrinou, Christina P
- Moschonis, George
- Godlewska, Magdalena
- Surwiłło, Agnieszka
- Drevon, Christian A
- Traczyk, Iwona
- Gibney, Eileen R
- Brennan, Lorraine
- Walsh, Marianne C
- Lovegrove, Julie A
- Saris, Wim H
- Daniel, Hannelore
- Gibney, Mike
- Mathers, John C
- 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
- Semantic Scholar
- af5edcbd61a73aa028b9bb4b2c75b835fc3c0e5d
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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
