ReviewCurrent opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care2026
Proteomics for precision nutrition: current evidence and future directions.
Review in Current opinion in clinical nutrition and metabolic care, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purpose of reviewThis review critically evaluates proteomics research applied to clinical nutrition and metabolism published between mid-2024 and early-2026, examining whether recent advances have moved the field closer to clinically actionable precision nutrition applications. RECENT
findingsLarge prospective cohort studies show that circulating proteomic signatures reflect dietary patterns and are associated with incident cardiometabolic, hepatic, and neurodegenerative outcomes. In most analyses, these signatures capture plausible biological pathways, but their incremental predictive value beyond established risk models appears modest. Interventional studies confirm that circulating proteins respond to dietary modification, but these trials are considerably smaller than epidemiological cohorts and proteomic-guided randomized allocation has rarely been implemented to date. Although multiomics integration and machine-learning approaches have expanded discovery and improved pathway modeling, independent validation, cross-platform consistency, and clinically meaningful risk reclassification remain inconsistently demonstrated across studies. SUMMARY: Diet-proteome associations are biologically coherent and reproducible at the population level. Nevertheless, translation into individualized dietary prescription remains to be demonstrated at scale. Robust evidence of cross-platform consistency, formal clinical utility, and outcome-driven trials incorporating proteomic-guided interventions will be key to enabling circulating proteomics to support routine precision nutrition practice.
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.