Abstract
Nutrigenetics is a promising field, but the achievability of expected benefits is challenged by the methodological limitations that are associated with clinical research in that field. The mere existence of these limitations suggests that promises about potential outcomes may be premature. Thus, benefits claimed in scientific journal articles in which these limitations are not acknowledged might stimulate biohype. This article aims to examine whether nutrigenetics clinical research articles are a potential source of biohype. Of the 173 articles identified, 16 contained claims in which clinical applications were extrapolated from study results. The methodological limitations being incompletely acknowledged, these articles could potentially be a source of biohype.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
