ArticleCurrent developments in nutrition2026
Quantifying the Contributions of Food, Glucose, Sleep, and Microbiome Data to Personalized Glycemic Response Prediction.
Article in Current developments in nutrition, 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
Background: Individual glycemic responses to foods vary and can be predicted using microbiome, activity, and dietary data. However, these data are expensive and invasive to collect, and it is not known how much each modality contributes to accuracy. Objectives: We aim to quantify the contributions of dietary, sleep, continuous glucose monitor (CGM), and microbiome features for glycemic response prediction; understand how much personal data are required for training; and evaluate how microbiome sample timing impacts model accuracy. Methods: We used data from 8334 participants in the Human Phenotype Project cohort study who provided demographic, anthropometric, dietary, and CGM data. Participants self-reported meals in a dietary tracking application for a mean of 10.78 d, during which they wore CGMs. We trained CatBoost models to predict postprandial glycemic response (PPGR) using 2-h incremental area under the curve and peak 2-h postprandial glucose rise (Glu Results: The model combining all features performed best, and CGM was the most informative feature. Models trained with more personal data had the best performance (PPGR split-by-meal R = 0.731; split-by-person R = 0.590), and personal training data had a larger effect on accuracy than microbiome. Microbiome features improved predictions most when collected within 7 d of meal logs and did not improve performance without personal training data or for samples collected >14 d after meal logs. Conclusions: Although CGM was the most important feature group, combining it with personal training data and timely microbiome samples led to the most accurate models in our analysis. These findings can help researchers understand the tradeoffs between the time and effort of data collection and how data types impact model performance.
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.