Real-World Evidence — What Is It and What Can It Tell Us?

Elevated postprandial blood glucose levels constitute a global epidemic and a major risk factor for prediabetes and type II diabetes, but existing dietary methods for controlling them have limited efficacy. Here, we continuously monitored week-long glucose levels in an 800-person cohort, measured responses to 46,898 meals, and found high variability in the response to identical meals, suggesting that universal dietary recommendations may have limited utility. We devised a machine-learning algorithm that integrates blood parameters, dietary habits, anthropometrics, physical activity, and gut microbiota measured in this cohort and showed that it accurately predicts personalized postprandial glycemic response to real-life meals. We validated these predictions in an independent 100-person cohort. Finally, a blinded randomized controlled dietary intervention based on this algorithm resulted in significantly lower postprandial responses and consistent alterations to gut microbiota configuration. Together, our results suggest that personalized diets may successfully modify elevated postprandial blood glucose and its metabolic consequences. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

The ratio of false-positive to false-negative findings (FP:FN ratio) is an informative metric that warrants further evaluation. The FP:FN ratio varies greatly across different epidemiologic areas. In genetic epidemiology, it has varied from very high values (possibly even >100:1) for associations reported in candidate-gene studies to very low values (1:100 or lower) for associations with genome-wide significance. The substantial reduction over time in the FP:FN ratio in human genome epidemiology has corresponded to the routine adoption of stringent inferential criteria and comprehensive, agnostic reporting of all analyses. Most traditional fields of epidemiologic research more closely follow the practices of past candidate gene epidemiology, and thus have high FP:FN ratios. Further, FP and FN results do not necessarily entail the same consequences, and their relative importance may vary in different settings. This ultimately has implications for what is the acceptable FP:FN ratio and for how the results of published epidemiologic studies should be presented and interpreted.