ArticlePloS one2025
Public perceptions of biospecimen sampling and uncertainty in the context of personalised nutrition.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.