Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40553346›Full record

ReviewMethods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.)2025

Review on Advancement of AI in Nutrigenomics.

Shivani Phugat, Prabudh Goel

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Shivani PhugatDepartment of Paediatric Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
Prabudh GoelDepartment of Paediatric Surgery, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nutrigenomics, the study of how dietary components influence gene expression and how genetic variations affect individual responses to nutrition, has emerged as a cornerstone of personalized medicine. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) with nutrigenomic research marks a significant advancement in our ability to understand and apply personalized nutrition principles. This chapter explores the transformative role of artificial intelligence in advancing nutrigenomic research and its practical applications in personalized nutrition. The convergence of AI with nutrigenomics has revolutionized our understanding of gene-diet interactions, enabling more sophisticated analysis of individual nutritional responses based on genetic profiles. Through advanced machine learning algorithms and deep learning approaches, researchers can now process vast amounts of genetic and dietary data to generate personalized nutritional recommendations with unprecedented precision. The emergence of smart wearable and mobile applications has further enhanced real-time nutrigenomic monitoring, particularly in areas such as continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) and metabolic profiling. While the field shows promising developments, especially in managing conditions like type 2 diabetes through precision nutrition, it faces several challenges including data privacy concerns and algorithmic biases. Despite these limitations, the integration of AI with nutrigenomic principles points toward a future where personalized nutrition becomes increasingly accessible and effective, though careful validation and implementation strategies remain crucial for its success.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceNutrigenomicsHumansMachine LearningPrecision MedicineArtificial intelligenceFederated learningNutrigeneticsNutrigenomicsType 2 diabetes

Identifiers

PMID40553346

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.