Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41187215›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Public perceptions of biospecimen sampling and uncertainty in the context of personalised nutrition.

Katharine Lee, Estelle Corbett, Rebecca Hafner, Julie Barnett

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 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

4 authors.

Katharine LeeDept. of Psychology, University of Bath, Claverton Down, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6199-8482
Estelle CorbettDept. of Psychology, University of Bath, Claverton Down, United Kingdom.
Rebecca HafnerSchool of Psychology, University of Swansea, Singleton Campus, Swansea, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7090-5150
Julie BarnettDept. of Psychology, University of Bath, Claverton Down, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5740-0863

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personalised nutrition based on analysis of biospecimen generates individual-specific dietary recommendations and potentially, improved health. However, the science underpinning these approaches is evolving and uncertain. Additionally, users must provide a biological sample appropriate to the analytic approach being taken. This two-part quasi-experimental study sought to understand the impact of certainty and sample type on affective responses and attitudes to personalised nutrition. Participants (n716) completed a free association task and an attitudinal survey. Participants responded with more positive affect and attitudes to personalised nutrition when the science was characterised as certain. Attitudes to personalised nutrition were not affected by sample type, although contemplating providing a stool sample elicited more negative affective responses than other samples. This suggests that the need to provide a stool sample could be a barrier to microbiome-based personalised nutrition. We consider the implications of our findings in relation to future research and to providers of personalised nutrition.

Indexed as

Precision MedicineSpecimen HandlingAdultAgedFecesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNutritional StatusSurveys and QuestionnairesUncertaintyYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID41187215
PMCPMC12585075

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.