|
The Ai-Driven All Substance Inclusive Diet (AI-ASID) A Systems-Based Nutrition Framework for Mental and Cognitive Health
Daniel S. L. Roberts, Ph.D.
Summary Human health is shaped, to a significant extent, by the totality of dietary substance exposure within the modern food environment, which comprises a complex mixture of essential nutrients, bioactive compounds, food additives, environmental contaminants, and other exogenous agents. This chapter advances the AI-Driven All-Substances Inclusive Diet (AI-ASID) as a systems-based precision nutrition framework designed to evaluate, quantify, and optimize total ingestible exposure in relation to neurobiological, metabolic, and cellular health. Moving beyond conventional nutrient-centric models, the framework conceptualizes diet as a dynamic network of biochemical signals whose cumulative and interactive effects influence neurotransmission, endocrine regulation, immune function, mitochondrial activity, oxidative balance, gut microbiome integrity, and epigenetic processes. The current analysis synthesizes empirical evidence demonstrating that nutritional adequacy is a foundational determinant of neurobiological integrity. Amino acids, essential fatty acids, vitamins, minerals, and diverse phytochemicals function as critical precursors, enzymatic cofactors, structural components, and protective agents that support neuronal signaling, synaptic plasticity, and overall physiological stability. Concurrently, adverse dietary exposures and chronic psychological stress interact to disrupt biochemical homeostasis through a network of interconnected regulatory systems that extend beyond the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis. These systems include the hypothalamic–pituitary–thyroid (HPT), hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal (HPG), and hypothalamic–pituitary–somatotropic (HPS) axes, as well as the gut–brain axis, immune–inflammatory pathways, and the autonomic nervous system regulation. Persistent dysregulation across these systems—characterized by chronic cortisol elevation, endocrine imbalance, neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and nutrient insufficiency—contributes to the development of metabolic syndromes involving interconnected neuroendocrine and integrated physiological axes. Over time, these disturbances increase vulnerability to a broad spectrum of physiological, psychological, and neurocognitive disorders. For example, the metabolic syndrome comprising a cluster of interrelated metabolic abnormalities is associated with insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, hypertension, central obesity, and elevated cardiovascular risk. In addition to its cardiometabolic consequences, this metabolic syndrome is increasingly linked to psychiatric conditions, including depressive and anxiety disorders, as well as cognitive impairment and accelerated neurocognitive decline. These observations support systems-based models that situate dietary exposure within an exposomic framework, emphasizing that health outcomes are shaped by cumulative lifetime exposure to both beneficial and harmful dietary constituents. Such exposures include nutrients and bioactive compounds, as well as food additives, processing-induced by-products, environmental toxicants, industrial pollutants, persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and emerging contaminants such as microplastics and nanoplastics. From this perspective, diet is conceptualized not merely as a source of nutrients, but as a complex and dynamic network of biologically active exposures capable of influencing metabolic, neuroendocrine, immune, and neurocognitive functioning across the lifespan. Within this context, the AI-Driven All-Substances Inclusive Diet (AI-ASID) integrates multidimensional biological, clinical, and behavioral data—including biomarkers, metabolic indicators, microbiome profiles, genetic information, and lifestyle variables—to support individualized dietary optimization. The central objective of the framework is to maximize nutrient density and the intake of beneficial bioactive compounds while minimizing cumulative toxic burden and exposure to substances that may contribute to physiological dysregulation. By integrating artificial intelligence with systems biology and precision nutrition approaches, the AI-ASID provides a comprehensive model for evaluating total dietary exposure and promoting long-term metabolic, psychological, and cognitive health.
e-Chapters
Nutritional Requirements for Optimal Neurobiological Function Optimal neurobiological function is fundamentally dependent on the sustained availability of all nutrients that act as biochemical precursors, enzymatic cofactors, and structural substrates across interconnected physiological systems. Amino acids, for instance, serve as primary substrates for the biosynthesis of key neurotransmitters—including serotonin, dopamine, and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)—which regulate mood, cognition, emotional processing, and behavioral stability. These amino acids play critical roles in modulating reward processing, motivation, stress responsivity, sleep–wake regulation, appetite control, pain perception, autonomic nervous system activity, and neuroendocrine signaling pathways, including the regulation of the hypothalamic–pituitary axis (Clemente-Suárez et al., 2025; Lashin et al., 2025; Purves, 2018). In parallel, vitamins and minerals function as indispensable cofactors in enzymatic pathways involved in mitochondrial ATP production, intermediary metabolism, DNA repair, and neuronal signaling, thereby sustaining the high energetic demands of the central nervous system (Chakif et al., 2026; Clemente-Suárez et al., 2025). Equally critical are essential fatty acids, namely, the long-chain omega-3 polyunsaturated fatty acids docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), which are integral structural components of neuronal membranes and contribute to membrane fluidity, synaptic transmission efficiency, receptor functionality, and adaptive neuroplasticity (Das et al., 2025; Hao & Sahibi, 2025; Zinkow et al., 2025). Beyond classical essential nutrients, dietary patterns that support optimal brain health must include a diverse spectrum of accessory bioactive compounds, including flavonoids, carotenoids, polyphenols, and other phytochemicals. These compounds exert antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and cell-signaling effects that enhance neuronal resilience and promote long-term neuroprotection (van Zonneveld et al., 2024; Adhikary et al., 2025). By modulating oxidative stress pathways, mitochondrial redox balance, neuroinflammatory cascades, and intracellular signaling networks, these bioactive compounds help preserve neural integrity against both endogenous metabolic stress and exogenous environmental insults (Chakif et al., 2026; Lasalle et al., 2019; Moummou et al., 2026). Conversely, deficiencies, insufficiencies, or chronic imbalances in essential and conditionally essential nutrients, and protective bioactive shave been shown to impair metabolic efficiency, disrupt neurotransmitter biosynthesis, weaken neuroendocrine regulation, and compromise immune surveillance, thereby increasing susceptibility to affective dysregulation, cognitive decline, and a broad range of psychological and neurocognitive disorders (Clemente-Suárez et al., 2025; Lassale et al., 2019;Lashin et al., 2025). The significance of nutritional adequacy becomes even more pronounced across the lifespan, particularly during aging, when intrinsic cellular repair mechanisms and metabolic flexibility progressively decline. Advancing age is associated with reduced mitochondrial efficiency, impaired proteostasis, cumulative oxidative damage, chronic low-grade inflammation, endocrine dysregulation, and age-related alterations in gut–brain–microbiome signaling pathways (López-Otín et al., 2013; Franceschi et al., 2018; Geroscience Research Network, 2022; Cryan et al., 2019; van Zonneveld et al., 2024). Overall, these interconnected biological disturbances have the potential to disrupt neurotransmitter synthesis and signaling, impair hormonal homeostasis, alter immune–inflammatory communication, compromise mitochondrial function, and reduce synaptic plasticity. Collectively, these effects may contribute to the cumulative physiological burden underlying numerous chronic health conditions, including metabolic disorders, neurodegenerative diseases, and psychiatric disorders (Levin, 2024; Mattson & Arumugam, 2018). Accordingly, a lifespan-oriented nutritional framework that prioritizes nutritional adequacy, dietary quality, and exposure to beneficial bioactive substances represents a critical foundation for preserving cognitive vitality, emotional regulation, psychological well-being, and long-term neurobiological resilience. Substance Exposure in the Modern Food System A systems biology perspective suggests that total dietary exposure encompasses a highly complex, dynamic, and multidimensional array of biologically relevant ingestible substances. Contemporary evidence from metabolomics and network-based nutrition research indicates that this exposure may involve tens of thousands of distinct chemical entities, plausibly exceeding 50,000 compounds when primary nutrients, secondary metabolites, microbial derivatives, degradation products, and transformation intermediates are considered (Menichetti et al., 2024; Naureen et al., 2022). These substances include essential and conditionally essential nutrients required for normal physiological function, as well as a vast spectrum of non-nutritive compounds, bioactive molecules, and exogenous chemicals derived from food processing, agricultural practices, environmental contamination, packaging materials, and industrial food production systems. They encompass naturally occurring phytochemicals, microbial metabolites, food additives, preservatives, artificial sweeteners, emulsifiers, colorants, flavoring agents, pesticide residues, veterinary drug residues, endocrine-disrupting compounds, heavy metals, persistent organic pollutants, microplastics, nanoplastics, and other emerging contaminants. From a systems biology perspective, these compounds interact within interconnected metabolic, signaling, regulatory, and host–microbiome networks, with their cumulative, interactive, and potentially synergistic effects influencing cellular function, physiological homeostasis, adaptive resilience, and disease risk (Barabási et al., 2019; Naureen et al., 2022). Consequently, the biological effects of dietary exposure cannot be fully understood by examining individual substances in isolation but must instead be considered within the broader context of complex exposure patterns and their integrated effects across molecular, cellular, organ-system, and whole-organism levels of organization. Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) Substances in the Modern Food System Within the United States food supply, it is estimated that approximately 2,000 to 3,000 substances have been designated as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS), with additional compounds introduced periodically as food technologies evolve. Precise quantification remains challenging, as reported totals vary according to regulatory definitions, classification criteria, and reporting practices (U.S. Government Accountability Office [GAO], 2010; U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2022). GRAS substances are categorized according to their functional roles in food production and processing, including high-intensity (non-nutritive) sweeteners, emulsifiers, stabilizers, texturizing agents, flavoring compounds, preservatives and antimicrobial agents, antioxidants, color additives, synthetic and natural food dyes, processing aids, anti-caking agents, thickening agents, humectants, pH regulators, firming agents, and nutrient fortificants. Collectively, these substances perform critical technological functions, including enhancing product stability, sensory characteristics, shelf life, and manufacturing consistency within the modern industrialized food system (European Food Safety Authority [EFSA], 2023). Despite their regulatory designation, increasing attention has been directed toward the cumulative and long-term biological effects of chronic exposure to certain food additives, particularly in the context of metabolic, inflammatory, and microbiome-mediated outcomes (Chassaing et al., 2015; Srour et al., 2022; Zinöcker& Lindseth, 2018). Emerging evidence suggests that some commonly used emulsifiers, artificial sweeteners, and preservatives may alter gut microbiota composition, increase intestinal permeability, and modulate systemic inflammatory signaling. Experimental and clinical studies indicate that these substances can disrupt intestinal homeostasis by reducing microbial diversity, degrading the mucosal barrier, and promoting chronic low-grade inflammation, with downstream implications for metabolic and immune regulation, as well as gut-brain communication (Seto et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2024). These effects have been proposed as potential mechanisms linking dietary exposures to broader disturbances in metabolic, neuroendocrine, and neurocognitive functioning. Recent integrative reviews highlight that preservatives, emulsifiers, and non-nutritive sweeteners exert multifaceted effects on host–microbiome interactions, including metabolic dysregulation, altered immune signaling, changes in microbial metabolite production, and neurobehavioral alterations. These findings have prompted renewed scrutiny of traditional safety assessment paradigms, which have historically evaluated substances in isolation rather than accounting for cumulative, combined, synergistic, and long-term exposure effects across complex biological systems (Barra et al., 2025; Li et al., 2024). Genetically Engineered (GE) and Gene-Edited Organisms in the Global Food System The global food system currently encompasses an estimated 550 to 700 genetically engineered (GE) and gene-edited organism lineages—that is, DNA insertions, deletions, substitutions, or targeted genomic modifications within a given organism (International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications [ISAAA], 2023; Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO], 2024). From a regulatory standpoint, the transformation event constitutes the most precise unit of classification. Worldwide, more than 400–500 GE crop events have been approved, encompassing traits such as herbicide tolerance, insect resistance, viral resistance, modified nutritional composition, enhanced environmental resilience, and stacked trait combinations that integrate multiple engineered characteristics within a single organism (ISAAA, 2023). The emergence of gene-editing technologies—particularly CRISPR-Cas systems—has substantially expanded within the food system. These techniques enable targeted alterations to endogenous genomic sequences without necessarily introducing exogenous DNA, thereby accelerating the development of crops with enhanced yield, environmental resilience, nutritional profiles, and resistance to biotic and abiotic stressors (FAO, 2024;Zhang et al., 2018). However, accurate global quantification of gene-edited organisms remains limited due to heterogeneity in regulatory frameworks across jurisdictions. Some regions classify gene-edited organisms as distinct from conventional genetically modified organisms (GMOs), whereas others regulate them under existing GMO legislation, resulting in inconsistencies in classification, labeling, and reporting practices (Zhang et al., 2018; FAO, 2024). Genetically modified microorganisms (GMMs) represent a critical, though often under-recognized, component of modern food production systems. Engineered bacteria, yeasts, and fungi are extensively utilized in industrial food processing and biotechnology to synthesize enzymes (e.g., amylases, proteases), vitamins (e.g., riboflavin [vitamin B2], cobalamin [vitamin B12]), amino acids (e.g., lysine, glutamate), organic acids, and a wide range of fermentation-derived compounds (Pariza & Johnson, 2022; Steensels et al., 2024). These organisms play a central role in the production of functional food ingredients and bioengineered compounds, including microbial rennet used in cheese manufacturing, specialty proteins, flavoring agents, aroma compounds, and other fermentation-derived food ingredients. In many applications, the final consumable product contains no viable genetically modified organisms but rather the metabolites, enzymes, or processing agents produced by them. This distinction complicates detection, traceability, exposure assessment, and regulatory oversight. In parallel with plant and microbial innovations, the application of genetic engineering and gene-editing technologies to animals represents an emerging and rapidly evolving domain. Genetically modified and gene-edited animals are being developed for agricultural, biomedical, and food production purposes. Representative examples include fast-growing Atlantic salmon engineered for accelerated growth, livestock with enhanced disease resistance, and animals modified to improve feed efficiency or reduce environmental impact, such as methane emissions (Van Eenennaam, 2017). Gene-editing technologies are also increasingly applied to improve animal welfare, including the development of hornless cattle, disease-resistant poultry, and animals, with enhance resilience to production-related stressors. As with plant-based systems, the regulatory status, commercialization pathways, and public acceptance of genetically modified animals vary substantially across regions, contributing to ongoing ethical, ecological, socioeconomic, and food safety debates. Overall, although engineered traits remain concentrated within a relatively limited number of major agricultural species, the broader food system encompasses hundreds of approved genetic modification events and potentially thousands of derived modified lines. Collectively, genetically engineered plants, microorganisms, and animals constitute a distinct and expanding component of the modern food supply and dietary exposure landscape. These developments carry important implications for nutritional quality, food security, environmental sustainability, agricultural productivity, and long-term human health, reinforcing the need for integrative, systems-based approaches to food safety evaluation, environmental risk assessment, and cumulative exposure analysis (FAO, 2024; ISAAA, 2023). Main Sources of Contemporary Disease: Integrated Effects of Stress, Nutritional Status, and Biochemical Regulation A central determinant of contemporary chronic disease—encompassing both physiological and psychological conditions—is the disruption of biochemical homeostasis resulting from the dynamic interplay between endogenous and exogenous influences. Among the most significant contributors are total dietary substance exposure—encompassing both essential nutrients and biologically active non-nutritive compounds—and the chronic activation of physiological stress-response systems. Together, these factors exert widespread effects across multiple biological domains, including cellular metabolism, neuroendocrine signaling, immune function, and neurobiological processes. Over time, such disturbances shape long-term health trajectories and increase susceptibility to a broad spectrum of disease outcomes (Afshin et al., 2020; Furman et al., 2019; Kivimäki & Steptoe, 2018). Physiological regulation is mediated through a network of interconnected neuroendocrine and integrated physiological axes. These include the classical hypothalamic–pituitary systems—namely, the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA), hypothalamic–pituitary–thyroid (HPT), hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal (HPG), and hypothalamic–pituitary–growth hormone (HPGH) axes—as well as integrative pathways that coordinate stress adaptation, metabolic regulation, and systemic homeostasis. Notable among these are the functional coupling of the HPA axis with the autonomic nervous system, the hypothalamic–pituitary–pancreatic axis, and the gut–brain–microbiome axis, which plays a critical role in modulating mood, cognition, and inflammatory processes. In addition, the hypothalamic–pituitary–immune (HPI) axis and neuroinflammatory–microglial pathways facilitate bidirectional communication between the nervous and immune systems (Carabotti et al., 2015; Cryan et al., 2022; Rush et al., 2023; Wang et al., 2023; Yoo et al., 2021) From a systems biology perspective, these pathways function as a highly integrated regulatory network rather than as discrete systems. They are characterized by shared signaling mediators (e.g., cortisol, insulin, and pro-inflammatory cytokines), reciprocal feedback loops, and extensive cross-axis interactions. For example, chronic activation of the HPA axis can disrupt metabolic regulation by impairing insulin signaling and glucose homeostasis through its interaction with the hypothalamic–pituitary–pancreatic axis. Concurrently, inflammatory signaling mediated via the HPI axis may further exacerbate endocrine and metabolic dysfunction by promoting insulin resistance and mitochondrial impairment. These interdependencies underscore the extent to which nutritional status, metabolic processes, and stress physiology are tightly interconnected and collectively shaped by dietary, environmental, and psychosocial exposures across the lifespan (Hotamisligil, 2017; Meng et al., 2013; Zhang & Schmidlin, 2024; Vineis et al., 2017). Within this integrative framework, nutritional status emerges as a foundational determinant of biochemical regulation. Malnutrition—defined as insufficient, excessive, or imbalanced nutrient intake—represents a significant physiological stressor, as it compromises the body’s capacity to maintain metabolic stability and cellular integrity. Essential nutrients, including vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids, are indispensable for structural maintenance, enzymatic activity, and regulatory processes. However, the modern food environment is characterized by exposure to a wide range of biologically active substances that may exert beneficial, neutral, or harmful effects depending on their concentration, bioavailability, and cumulative exposure. When nutrient intake is inadequate or toxic exposures exceed physiological tolerance, disruptions in mitochondrial function, redox balance, inflammatory signaling, and cellular repair mechanisms may arise, ultimately impairing systemic function (Aparicio-Trejo et al., 2025; Di Giacomo et al, 2020; Suomalainen & Nunnari, 2024). In this context, chronic psychological and physiological stress constitutes a major endogenous driver of biochemical dysregulation. Persistent activation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis leads to sustained elevations in cortisol—a glucocorticoid hormone that is essential for acute adaptation but becomes pathogenic under chronic conditions. Prolonged exposure to elevated cortisol disrupts metabolic homeostasis, contributing to insulin resistance, impaired glucose regulation, visceral adiposity, and dyslipidemia—hallmark features of cardiometabolic disorders such as type 2 diabetes mellitus, metabolic syndrome, and cardiovascular disease (Hackett & Steptoe, 2020; Joseph & Golden, 2022; Kyrou et al., 2022; Russell& Lightman, 2019). In addition to its metabolic consequences, chronic stress exerts significant effects on neurobiological and psychological functioning. Sustained cortisol elevation alters the regulation of key neurotransmitter systems, including serotonin, dopamine, and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA), which are essential for mood regulation, cognitive performance, and emotional stability. Dysregulation of these systems has been associated with increased risk of depressive and anxiety disorders, cognitive impairment, and sleep disturbances (O’Connor et al., 2021; Slavich & Irwin, 2014). Moreover, because serotonin serves as a precursor to melatonin, disruptions in serotonergic signaling may impair circadian rhythm regulation, thereby contributing further to both psychological and physiological dysfunction (Walker, 2020). Chronic stress also affects immune function through its interaction with the hypothalamic–pituitary–immune axis. Elevated cortisol suppresses immune surveillance mechanisms, including natural killer cell activity and lymphocyte function, while simultaneously promoting pro-inflammatory and oxidative processes. This imbalance may increase susceptibility to infection, delays tissue repair, accelerate biological aging, and contributes to the progression of inflammatory and degenerative diseases. Concurrent activation of neuroinflammatory pathways, particularly those involving microglial signaling, further links chronic stress to neurodegenerative processes and psychiatric conditions (Furman et al., 2021; Dhabhar, 2022; Perry et al., 2021). Importantly, nutritional status and stress physiology are closely interconnected in a bidirectional manner. Chronic stress increases metabolic demand and accelerates the depletion of essential nutrients, including antioxidant vitamins, B-complex vitamins, essential fatty acids, and key minerals such as magnesium, selenium, and iron. These nutrients are required for adrenal hormone synthesis, neurotransmitter production, antioxidant defense, and cellular energy metabolism. Consequently, nutrient depletion may impair the body’s ability to regulate stress responses effectively, creating a self-reinforcing cycle of stress, deficiency, and physiological dysregulation (Calder, 2020; Mikkelsen et al., 2017). Certain nutrients play particularly important roles within this interaction. B-complex vitamins support mitochondrial energy production and neuroendocrine function; magnesium contributes to autonomic balance and metabolic regulation; and omega-3 fatty acids are essential for inflammatory control, neuronal membrane integrity, and neurotransmitter function. Deficiencies in these nutrients can amplify the metabolic, neurological, and inflammatory consequences of chronic stress, further exacerbating systemic dysfunction (Godos et al., 2020; Grosso et al., 2020). Given the integrative nature of neuroendocrine regulation, the combined effects of chronic stress and nutritional imbalance can disrupt multiple hormonal systems simultaneously, including adrenal, thyroid, pancreatic, and reproductive axes. Such widespread dysregulation reduces metabolic efficiency, impairs physiological resilience, and increases vulnerability to a broad range of chronic physical and mental disorders (McEwen & Akil, 2020). At the neural level, these disturbances impair core brain functions, including cognition, emotional regulation, memory processing, attention, and executive functioning. Alterations in neurotransmitter activity, synaptic plasticity, and large-scale neural network connectivity—driven by chronic stress, nutrient deficiencies, and metabolic imbalance—reduce the efficiency of neural communication and information processing. These changes not only contribute to psychological dysfunction but also interact with endocrine and metabolic systems, thereby reinforcing a cycle of systemic dysregulation (Arnsten et al., 2020; Zong et al., 2024). Neurobiological and Biochemical Dysregulation in the Pathophysiology of Mental Disorders Building on the preceding discussion of integrated biochemical, endocrine, and neurobiological regulation, a substantial body of contemporary evidence indicates that chronic disturbances across these interconnected systems are closely associated with the development, progression, and persistence of mental disorders (Hotamisligil, 2022). Central to these processes is the sustained activation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis and the resulting dysregulation of cortisol secretion, which exerts widespread effects on brain function and systemic physiology. In parallel, imbalances in key neurotransmitter systems—including serotonin, dopamine, and gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA)—interact with neuroinflammatory activation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and nutrient insufficiency to produce cumulative alterations in brain structure and function (Calder, 2020; Miranda-Massariet al, 2022; Scarpulla, 2011). These interrelated disruptions impair neuronal signaling, synaptic plasticity, and large-scale neural network integration, thereby undermining emotional regulation, cognitive performance, and emotional stability. Chronic neuroinflammation and metabolic dysregulation, in particular, have been shown to interfere with neurogenesis, synaptic remodeling, and neurotransmitter homeostasis, thereby contributing to the persistence of maladaptive cognitive and affective states (Hotamisligil, 2022; Haroon, Raison,& Miller, 2012; Pavlov & Tracey, 2021). Within the diagnostic framework of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR), these pathophysiological processes are most prominently implicated in depressive and anxiety disorders. Major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder have been consistently associated with HPA axis hyperactivity, impaired monoaminergic signaling, and elevated inflammatory markers (Calder, 2020; Dantzer et al., 2008; Slavich & Irwin, 2014). These biological disturbances disrupt mood regulation, stress responsivity, cognitive processing, and emotional control, thereby contributing to both the onset and persistence of clinical symptomatology. More broadly, biochemical and stress-related disturbances contribute to a wide spectrum of psychiatric conditions, reflecting the highly integrated nature of neuroendocrine, metabolic, and immune systems. Rather than representing a singular causal pathway, these associations reflect convergent and interacting mechanisms—including chronic stress physiology, oxidative stress, inflammatory activation, impaired neurotransmitter synthesis, mitochondrial dysfunction, and metabolic instability—that collectively increase vulnerability to mental disorders and may exacerbate symptom severity across diagnostic categories (Krishnan & Nestler, 2008; McEwen & Akil, 2020). Consistent with classifications outlined in both the DSM-5-TR and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11), these mechanisms have also been implicated in a diverse range of conditions, including trauma- and stressor-related disorders, bipolar and related disorders, and other psychotic disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive–compulsive and related disorders, feeding and eating disorders, sleep–wake disorders, and neurocognitive disorders. Across these conditions, dysregulation of shared biological systems provides a unifying framework that links physiological imbalance with psychological and behavioral dysfunction, reinforcing the need for integrative, systems-based approaches to mental health research and intervention. Systems Biology of Dietary Exposure and Neuroendocrine Dysregulation Across Mental, Cognitive, and Metabolic Disorders To operationalize this systems-based framework, computational tools such as ChatGPT are used to generate structured analytical outputs. For example, one may prompt ChatGPT as follow: “Provide, in table format, a comprehensive overview of nutrient deficiencies associated with psychiatric disorders classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR).” A shortened version of a table generated in response to this prompt is presented below.
Note. Nutrient deficiencies may not directly cause” fully developed DSM-5-TR disorders. Nevertheless, they can contribute significantly to a wide range of psychiatric, psychological, and neurocognitive symptoms that interfere with daily functioning and overall quality of life. Furthermore, nutritional deficiencies can exacerbate, perpetuate, or increase vulnerability to a wide range of psychiatric and neurocognitive disturbances, particularly when interacting with other contributing factors such as genetic predisposition, chronic psychological stress, systemic inflammation, endocrine dysfunction, substance use, poor dietary quality, chronic medical illness, and adverse environmental exposures. Collectively, these interacting may disrupt neurotransmitter synthesis, neuroendocrine regulation, mitochondrial function, immune signaling, and broader metabolic processes involved in mental and cognitive health. Readers may also use ChatGPT to examine adverse environmental and dietary exposures that may contribute to psychiatric and neurocognitive disturbances. For example, one may prompt ChatGPT as follows: “Provide, in table format, a comprehensive classification of biologically relevant substances in the modern food supply and their systems-level associations with psychiatric disorders classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed., text rev.; DSM-5-TR), or other such major diagnostic nomenclatures.” A shortened version of a table generated by ChatGPT in response to this prompt is presented below.
Readers may also apply the same analytical approach to learning disabilities and cognitive disorders classified across major diagnostic and educational nomenclatures, such as listed below. For example, one may prompt ChatGPT as follows: “Provide, in table format, a comprehensive classification of biologically relevant substances in the modern food supply and their systems-level associations with learning disabilities and cognitive disorders classified under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). 1. Core Global Psychiatric and Medical Classification Systems
2. Core Global Cognitive Impairments and Learning Disabilities Nomenclatures
This analytical approach—mapping neuroendocrine and integrated physiological axes to representative disorders across multiple diagnostic, clinical, and educational classification systems—serves as a systems-level analytical framework rather than merely a table-building exercise. By integrating relationships among neuroendocrine pathways, physiological biomarkers, and diagnostic categories, it facilitates the identification of common biological mechanisms, shared pathophysiological processes, and cross-cutting risk factors underlying diverse conditions. Such an approach promotes a more comprehensive understanding of health and disease as products of interconnected biological systems rather than isolated diagnostic entities. Furthermore, by linking regulatory pathways to observable clinical outcomes, this framework supports the integration of molecular, physiological, psychological, and behavioral levels of analysis. In doing so, it advances the shift from reductionist classification models toward more integrative, systems-oriented approaches that are consistent with contemporary developments in systems biology, network medicine, exposomics, precision medicine, and personalized healthcare. As a conceptual and analytical tool, it may also assist researchers, clinicians, educators, and policymakers in identifying shared mechanisms across traditionally distinct diagnostic categories, thereby fostering more interdisciplinary approaches to prevention, assessment, and intervention. Metabolic Syndromes and their Associated Neuroendocrine and Integrated Axes. Systems-oriented frameworks are especially well suited to the study of metabolic syndromes, which are best conceptualized as disorders of integrated neuroendocrine–metabolic network dysregulation rather than isolated pathological entities. Across these conditions, recurrent patterns of dysfunction involve multiple interacting systems, including the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis, hypothalamic–pituitary–pancreatic (HPP) axis, hypothalamic–adipose signaling pathways, hypothalamic–pituitary–thyroid (HPT) axis, gut–brain–microbiome axis, autonomic nervous system (ANS), neuroimmune axis, and mitochondrial–circadian regulatory systems. The convergence of these overlapping pathways provides a mechanistic basis for the frequent co-occurrence of cardiometabolic, inflammatory, hepatic, cognitive, and psychiatric outcomes observed across metabolic syndromes, thereby reinforcing the need for integrative, systems-based approaches aligned with contemporary advances in systems biology, network medicine, and precision medicine. Table 3 presents an abbreviated master framework that maps major metabolic syndrome categories to their associated neuroendocrine and integrated physiological axes, key biomarkers, and representative clinical outcomes.
The corresponding prompt for generating a more comprehensive master table of outcomes related to metabolic syndromes may be formulated as follows: “Generate a comprehensive master table mapping metabolic syndromes and related disorders to their associated neuroendocrine and integrated physiological axes, relevant biomarkers, and representative clinical outcomes.” Note. The table illustrates that multiple metabolic syndromes are associated with specific neuroendocrine and integrated physiological axes, each characterized by distinct biomarker profiles and clinical outcomes. Collectively, these syndromes reflect patterns of dysregulation across interconnected metabolic, endocrine, inflammatory, autonomic, and neurocognitive systems. Accordingly, the associated biomarkers and clinical manifestations vary according to the primary regulatory pathways involved and the extent of multisystem physiological dysfunction. In many cases, dysregulation within one primary regulatory pathway (e.g., the hypothalamic–pituitary–thyroid [HPT] axis, hypothalamic–pituitary–growth hormone [HPGH] axis, hypothalamic–pituitary–immune [HPI] axis, or central nervous system pathways) is associated with the development or progression of additional metabolic syndromes. For example, the classical metabolic syndrome is associated with cardiometabolic disorders, including coronary artery disease most often accompanied with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Individuals with cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes reflects shared pathophysiological mechanisms such as insulin resistance, chronic low-grade inflammation, endothelial dysfunction, and autonomic dysregulation. Likewise, stress-related metabolic syndrome, neuroinflammatory metabolic syndrome, and metabolic dysfunction–associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) often shares common biological pathways involving inflammatory activation, insulin resistance, endocrine dysregulation, and disturbances in gut–brain–metabolic signaling. These overlapping conditions underscore the highly interconnected nature of metabolic, neuroendocrine, immune, and inflammatory regulatory systems. Role of Neuroendocrine and Integrated Physiological Axes in Learning Disabilities and Cognitive Dysfunction Learning disabilities, cognitive dysfunction, and intellectual deficits are increasingly conceptualized as arising, in part, from disturbances within interconnected neuroendocrine, metabolic, immune, and gut–brain regulatory systems (Johnson et al., 2021; McEwen & Akil, 2020; Ellis, Sheridan, Belsky & McLaughlin, 2022). Neuroendocrine regulation is centrally coordinated by the hypothalamus, which integrates signals related to stress adaptation, energy balance, growth, circadian rhythm regulation, autonomic function, and immune communication (Ulrich-Lai & Herman, 2009; Juruena et al., 2020). Importantly, even though the major hypothalamic axes operate through shared regulatory structures, they involve overlapping yet functionally specialized neural networks linking the hypothalamus, pituitary gland, hippocampus, prefrontal cortex, limbic system, and broader cortico-subcortical pathways (Arnsten, 2009; McEwen & Akil, 2020). Dysregulation within these interconnected systems may therefore contribute to impairments in attention, memory, executive functioning, adaptive behavior, learning efficiency, and intellectual development (Diamond, 2013; Lupien et al., 2009). Among these systems, the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis has received substantial attention because of its role in stress responsivity and cognitive functioning. Chronic dysregulation of cortisol signaling has been associated with impaired hippocampal integrity, reduced prefrontal cortical functioning, attentional dysregulation, working-memory deficits, and diminished cognitive flexibility (Lupien et al., 2009; McEwen & Akil, 2020). These alterations may adversely affect academic performance, learning capacity, emotional self-regulation, and adaptive functioning (Arnsten, 2009; Liston et al., 2009). Other neuroendocrine pathways are also implicated in cognitive and learning-related outcomes. Disturbances in the hypothalamic–pituitary–thyroid (HPT) axis may impair psychomotor speed, information processing, attention, and intellectual development, particularly during critical neurodevelopmental periods (Bernal, 2007; Taylor et al., 2018). Similarly, dysregulation of the hypothalamic–pituitary–gonadal (HPG) axis may influence neurodevelopmental maturation, motivation, emotional regulation, and cognitive performance through the effects of sex hormones on neural connectivity and synaptic plasticity, and brain maturation processes (Peper et al., 2011; Vijayakumar et al., 2018). I Increasing evidence also highlights the importance of the gut–brain–microbiome axis, in which bidirectional interactions among microbial, immune, metabolic, and endocrine processes may influence brain development, neuroinflammation, stress responsivity, and cognitive functioning (Cryan et al., 2019; Morais et al., 2021). Through the production of microbial metabolites, modulation of immune signaling pathways, regulation of intestinal barrier integrity, and communication via neural and endocrine mechanisms, the gut microbiome may affect neurotransmitter activity, synaptic plasticity, emotional regulation, and higher-order cognitive processes. From a systems-based perspective, learning disabilities and cognitive dysfunction may be conceptualized not solely as isolated deficits, but as outcomes associated with dysregulation across interconnected neurobiological control systems. These systems may be shaped by multiple interacting determinants, including chronic stress, inflammation, nutritional insufficiencies, endocrine disruption, toxicant exposure, mitochondrial dysfunction, oxidative stress, environmental exposures, and microbiome-related signaling. Stress-related mechanisms are particularly relevant because chronic or uncontrollable stress can impair prefrontal cortical regulation, alter neuroendocrine function, and disrupt neural systems involved in attention, executive control, learning, and adaptive behavior (Arnsten, 2015; McEwen & Akil, 2020; Miller et al., 2022; Tottenham & Galván, 2016). These interacting mechanisms have been implicated in neurodevelopmental and cognitive conditions such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorder, intellectual developmental disorder, and specific learning disorders. In these conditions, alterations in neuroendocrine regulation, neuroimmune signaling, synaptic development, and neural network organization may contribute to persistent cognitive, behavioral, and adaptive impairments (Han et al., 2021; Li & Bi, 2022; Lord et al., 2020; Smith & Pollak, 2020. Thapar et al., 2012; Zengeler & Lukens, 2021). Toxic Substances in the Food Supply and Broader Exposome: Implications for Nutritional Status and Health Human exposure to toxic substances within the modern food environment constitutes a substantial component of the total environmental burden experience across the lifespan. Contemporary dietary systems are characterized by continuous, low-level exposure to a diverse array of exogenous compounds derived from environmental contamination, industrial agriculture, food processing, additives, packaging materials, and behavior-related factors, including substance use. These exposures accumulate over time land interact with individual physiological, metabolic, and genetic, and epigenetc factors to influence health outcomes (Lane et al., 2024; Wan et al., 2025). Increasingly, this cumulative exposure profile is conceptualized within an exposomic framework, which emphasizes the dynamic and integrative nature of environmental, dietary, behavioral, and lifestyle-related determinants of human biology (Vineis et al., 2020; Wan et al., 2025). Toxic substances present in the food supply originate from both natural and anthropogenic sources. Naturally occurring contaminants include mycotoxins produced by fungi in grains and nuts, bacterial toxins associated with improper food storage, and intrinsic plant defense compounds such as solanine and cyanogenic glycosides (Eskola et al., 2020). Concurrently, environmental pollutants—including heavy metals (e.g., lead, mercury, arsenic, and cadmium), persistent organic pollutants (POPs), and pesticide residues, industrial contaminants, and endocrine-disrupting chemicals (EDCs)—can bioaccumulate in crops and animal products, contributing to chronic, low-dose exposure with well-documented neurotoxic, endocrine-disrupting, and immunomodulatory effects (Jaishankar et al., 2014; Lane et al., 2024). Food production and processing practices further amplify the toxicological burden. High-temperature cooking methods generate harmful by-products such as acrylamide, heterocyclic amines, and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, which are associated with oxidative stress and carcinogenic potential (Knize & Felton, 2005; World Health Organization [WHO], 2023). Additionally, advanced glycation end products (AGEs), formed during thermal processing, contribute to inflammation, insulin resistance, and metabolic dysfunction (Uribarri et al., 2020). Industrial trans fatty acids, although increasingly regulated, remain linked to systemic inflammation and elevated cardiovascular risk (Afshin et al., 2020). Beyond intrinsic food components, exposure to food additives and packaging-derived chemicals represents a significant and persistent source of toxic burden. Compounds such as nitrite preservatives, bisphenol A (BPA), phthalates, and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been shown to disrupt endocrine signaling, metabolic regulation, reproductive function, and developmental processes, particularly under conditions of chronic, low-dose exposure (Nayak et al., 2025). Emerging evidence further suggests that cumulative exposure to multiple endocrine-disrupting compounds may produce additive or synergistic biological effects that are not adequately captured by traditional single-compound risk assessment models. The widespread presence of microplastics and nanoplastics in the food supply further compounds this toxicological burden. These particles, derived from environmental degradation, industrial sources, and food packaging materials, have been detected in human blood, placental tissue, lung tissue, and other biological samples. Current evidence suggests that they may act not only as contaminants themselves but also as carriers of other environmental pollutants and chemical additives. Exposure to microplastics and nanoplastics has been associated with oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, gut barrier dysfunction, microbiome alterations, immune dysregulation, and potential disturbances in metabolic and neuroendocrine functioning (Leslie et al., 2022; European Food Safety Authority [EFSA] Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain, 2021). Behavioral Toxic Exposures: Alcohol, Nicotine, and Recreational Drugs: An Integrated Systems Perspective Within the exposomic framework, behaviorally mediated exposures—particularly alcohol, nicotine, and recreational drug use—represent critical, yet often under-integrated, contributors to total toxic burden. These substances interact synergistically with dietary and environmental exposures, potentially amplifying physiological dysregulation, metabolic disturbances, and nutrient imbalances across multiple biological systems. Chronic exposure to these substances exerts profound effects on central neurotransmitter systems, particularly the dopaminergic reward circuitry and motivational networks, producing transient reinforcement while promoting neuroadaptation and dependency (Volcow, Koob & McLellan, 2016; Volkow & Boyle, 2018). Importantly, their impact extends beyond neurobiology to include significant disruptions in nutritional status. Substance use is strongly associated with both primary and secondary malnutrition. Primary malnutrition arises from reduced or irregular food intake due to behavioral displacement, whereas secondary malnutrition reflects impairments in nutrient digestion, absorption, transport, and metabolic utilization (Bishehsari et al., 2017; Weaver et al., 2021). These mechanisms frequently coexist, resulting in cumulative deficits that compromise neurological, immune, and metabolic function. Alcohol serves as a paradigmatic example of substance-induced nutritional disruption. Chronic alcohol consumption impairs gastrointestinal integrity and disrupts lipid metabolism, thereby inhibiting the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K) and essential fatty acids (Bishehsari et al., 2020; Jarvis et al., 2022). In addition, alcohol-induced hepatic and intestinal dysfunction reduces the availability of key micronutrients, including thiamine (vitamin B1), folate, vitamin B12, magnesium, and zinc. Deficiencies in these nutrients are strongly associated with neuropsychiatric outcomes, including depression, cognitive impairment, neuropathy, Wernicke–Korsakoff syndrome, and other neurocognitive disturbances (Mikkelsen et al., 2017). Nicotine exposure, primarily through tobacco use, further contributes to nutrient depletion and oxidative imbalance. Smoking is associated with reduced levels of B-complex vitamins, vitamin C, and antioxidant compounds such as beta-carotene, largely due to increased oxidative stress and inflammatory burden (Dietrich et al., 2006; Calder, 2020). Moreover, smokers frequently exhibit decreased levels of essential trace minerals, including selenium and zinc, which play critical roles in antioxidant defense, immune regulation, and cellular repair processes. These nutritional alterations may further exacerbate cardiovascular, respiratory, metabolic, and neurocognitive risk. The use of other substances—including cannabis, butane hash oil, cocaine, and methamphetamine—further exacerbates systemic toxicity. These substances are associated with increased oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and inflammatory activation, leading to DNA damage and neurotoxicity (Cadet & Krasnova, 2009; Cadet & Bisagno, 2016). Chronic exposure can result in structural and functional alterations in brain regions involved in cognition, memory, and emotional regulation, thereby increasing susceptibility to cognitive impairment and psychiatric symptoms, or disorders (Volkow, Michaelides & Baler, 2021). The health effects of toxic exposures—whether derived from the food supply, environmental contaminants, or behavioral substances—are rarely attributable to single agents. Rather, they reflect the cumulative and interactive effects of multiple exposures over time. These effects are modulated by factors such as dose, duration, developmental timing, genetic susceptibility, detoxification capacity, microbiome composition, and overall nutritional status (Vineis et al., 2020). From a systems biology perspective, toxic substances disrupt interconnected regulatory networks, including neuroendocrine signaling, metabolic homeostasis, immune function, mitochondrial bioenergetics, oxidative balance, and gut–brain axis communication. Through these pathways, toxic exposures may contribute to chronic inflammation, endocrine dysfunction, impaired cellular resilience, and disturbances in neural and metabolic regulation. Such disruptions have been implicated in the pathogenesis of a wide spectrum of chronic conditions, including metabolic disorders, neuropsychiatric diseases, cardiovascular disease, neurodegenerative disorders, and immune dysfunction. Accordingly, an exposomic, systems-based, or whole-exposure framework is essential for accurately characterizing risk and informing prevention and intervention strategies. Such an approach emphasizes not only the reduction of harmful exposures but also the optimization of nutritional status, physiological resilience, and adaptive biological functioning. Within this integrative paradigm, toxic substance exposure—across dietary, environmental, and behavioral domains—emerges as a central and potentially modifiable determinant of long-term metabolic, cognitive, psychological, and overall health outcomes. The AI-Driven All-Substances Inclusive Diet (AI-ASID) Framework The AI-Driven All-Substances Inclusive Diet (AI-ASID) represents a comprehensive, systems-based approach to nutrition that conceptualizes diet as a complex network of biochemical exposures. Grounded in advances in nutritional science, systems biology, exposomics, and artificial intelligence, the framework extends beyond traditional nutrient-focused models to incorporate the totality of ingestible substances and their cumulative effects on human physiology, cognition, behavior and long-term health outcomes. I. Conceptual Foundation The AI-ASID framework is underpinned by five core principles that collectively define its theoretical and operational structure. 1. Total Substance Accounting The AI-ASID adopts a whole-exposure model in which all biologically active ingestible compounds are systematically evaluated. These include essential nutrients (e.g., vitamins, minerals, amino acids, and fatty acids), conditionally essential nutrients (e.g., choline and taurine), phytochemicals and polyphenols, food additives and preservatives (including substances generally recognized as safe [GRAS]), artificial sweeteners and emulsifiers, environmental contaminants (e.g., heavy metals, pesticide residues, microplastics, nanoplastics, and endocrine-disrupting chemicals), and psychoactive dietary agents such as caffeine and alcohol. Importantly, the framework also accounts for interaction effects among nutrients, additives, contaminants, and other environmental exposures. Health outcomes are therefore conceptualized as a function not only of nutrient sufficiency but also of cumulative biochemical burden, exposure interactions, and lifetime exposomic load. 2. Artificial Intelligence–Assisted Quantification and Modeling Artificial intelligence serves as the analytical backbone of the AI-ASID. Advanced algorithms are used to aggregate dietary intake data (e.g., food logs, barcode scans, biomarker profiles, and wearable-device data), estimate total exposure to dietary constituents, and model interactions across metabolic pathways. These systems are capable of predicting inflammatory, glycemic, oxidative, and microbiome-related responses, as well as simulating long-term health trajectories, including biological aging. Machine learning techniques enable the identification of exposure thresholds associated with metabolic efficiency, disease risk, and longevity outcomes. 3. Personalized Biological Calibration The AI-ASID framework is individualized through the integration of multidimensional biological and behavioral data. These include clinical biomarkers (e.g., lipid profiles, glycated hemoglobin [HbA1c], high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP], and insulin sensitivity indices), genomic variants, epigenetic aging markers, microbiome composition, body composition metrics, and psychological or behavioral indicators. Dietary recommendations are therefore tailored to both genotype and phenotype, while accounting for the dynamic interaction between biological predispositions and environmental influences, thereby moving beyond population-based guidelines toward precision nutrition. 4. Exposure Transparency and Cumulative Risk Awareness A distinguishing feature of the AI-ASID is its explicit consideration of cumulative exposure and interactive risk. The framework accounts for the total additive burden across meals and over time, potential synergistic effects among food additives (e.g., sweeteners, emulsifiers, and preservatives), and the implications of repeated low-dose exposure to compounds deemed safe in isolation. It also incorporates patterns of ultra-processed food consumption, including classification systems such as NOVA, thereby addressing a key limitation of conventional labeling systems: the absence of cumulative exposure context and systems-level risk assessment. 5. Integration With Multidimensional Health Metrics Within a broader systems framework, the AI-ASID functions as a primary modifiable determinant of integrated health outcomes. These include the Health Quotient (HQ), reflecting metabolic and physiological integrity; the Mental Health Quotient (MHQ), encompassing cognitive performance, emotional regulation, and stress resilience; and the Biological Age Quotient (BAQ), representing epigenetic aging, inflammatory burden, and metabolic efficiency. Dietary exposure is modeled as a central input variable influencing all three indices. II. Operational Definition Operationally, the AI-Driven All-Substances Inclusive Diet (AI-ASID) is a dynamic, algorithmically guided nutritional framework that quantifies and optimizes total ingestible biochemical exposure at the individual level. Its primary objectives are to enhance metabolic function, reduce cumulative toxic burden, improve cognitive and psychological resilience, and modulate the rate of biological aging. Key distinguishing features include comprehensive biochemical exposure assessment, biomarker-guided personalization, continuous AI-driven adaptation, full accounting of additives and environmental toxicants, and long-term optimization of physiological and epigenetic outcomes. III. Distinguishing Features Relative to Traditional Models In contrast to conventional dietary paradigms, which emphasize caloric intake and macronutrient distribution, the AI-ASID prioritizes total biochemical exposure and individualized optimization. Traditional models rely on population-based dietary reference intakes and static guidelines, whereas the AI-ASID employs dynamic, data-driven algorithms informed by real-time biological feedback. Furthermore, it extends beyond the limited evaluation of additives to include comprehensive accounting of contaminants and cumulative exposures, thereby shifting the focus from short-term outcomes (e.g., weight management) to long-term health optimization and biological aging. IV. Integration of Scientific Domains The AI-ASID framework is inherently interdisciplinary, integrating multiple scientific domains, including nutritional biochemistry, systems biology, toxicology, nutrigenomics, epigenetics, microbiome science, behavioral science, and preventive cardiometabolic medicine. This integrative approach enables a more comprehensive understanding of how dietary exposures interact with complex biological systems. V. Strategic Objectives The primary objectives of the AI-ASID framework are to: (1) achieve essential and conditional nutrients sufficiency within a metabolically efficient context; (2) minimize dietary contributions to inflammation and oxidative stress; (3) reduce exposure to ultra-processed substances and exogenous toxicants; (4) optimize gut microbiome diversity and metabolite production; (5) support favorable epigenetic and biological aging trajectories; and (6) align dietary intake with optimal cognitive performance and emotional regulation. (7) enhance long-term physiological resilience and adaptive capacity across multiple biological systems. VI. Expanded Conceptual Perspective From a broader conceptual standpoint, the AI-ASID reframes diet not merely as caloric intake, but as the controlled modulation of biochemical signals entering the human organism. Each ingested compound participates in a dynamic and interconnected signaling network that influences hormonal regulation, immune function, neurotransmitter balance, cellular repair processes, mitochondrial efficiency, and epigenetic expression. Accordingly, the AI-ASID positions dietary intake as a central determinant of systemic regulation, emphasizing the role of cumulative exposure in shaping health across the lifespan. Synthesis Collectively, these additional components reinforce the AI-ASID as a next-generation, integrative nutrition paradigm grounded in systems biology, precision medicine, and artificial intelligence. By incorporating multidimensional data streams—ranging from molecular biomarkers to behavioral and environmental inputs—the framework enables a comprehensive understanding of diet as a dynamic, cumulative exposure system. This expanded architecture enhances its capacity to optimize metabolic function, cognitive performance, and long-term health while minimizing cumulative toxic burden and disease risk. As such, the AI-ASID provides a conceptual and analytical foundation for a more comprehensive approach to nutrition that recognizes the complex interplay between dietary exposures, biological systems, and lifelong health trajectories. The Importance of the AI-Driven All-Inclusive Substances Diet (AI-ASID) In summary, the AI-Driven All-Inclusive Substances Diet (AI-ASID) represents a paradigm shift in nutritional science. Rather than reducing diet to calories and macronutrient ratios, it recognizes that every ingested compound—including nutrients, additives, contaminants, or bioactive molecules—participates in a complex biochemical signaling network that influences metabolic function, immune regulation, neurobiology, and aging. By accounting for total biochemical exposure, the AI-ASID framework addresses a critical gap in conventional dietary models: the cumulative and interactive effects of thousands of substances present in the modern food supply. Its importance lies in its precision and personalization. By integrating biomarkers, genomic data, microbiome profiles, and metabolic indicators, the AI-ASID moves beyond population-based averages and toward individualized optimization. This systems-based framework aligns dietary intake with measurable outcomes in metabolic health, cognitive performance, psychological resilience, and biological aging. In doing so, it provides a structured method for reducing inflammatory load, minimizing toxic exposure, and enhancing physiological efficiency. Ultimately, the AI-Driven All-Substances Inclusive Diet (AI-ASID) reframes nutrition as a central, modifiable determinant of long-term health trajectories. In an era characterized by widespread consumption of ultra-processed foods, increasing exposure to environmental contaminants, and a rising prevalence of chronic disease, a comprehensive, data-driven approach to total dietary exposure is not merely innovative but essential. By integrating artificial intelligence with systems biology, the AI-ASID framework provides a forward-looking model for the prevention of adverse health outcomes, the preservation of metabolic integrity, and the promotion of sustained human resilience. The AI-ASID Meal Planning: A Data-Driven Framework for Personalized Nutrition Leveraging advances in data-driven analytics, artificial intelligence, and precision nutrition, the AI-Driven All-Substances Inclusive Diet (AI-ASID) enables the systematic generation of personalized meal plans tailored to individual biological, behavioral, and clinical profiles. By integrating multidimensional data inputs—including demographic characteristics, lifestyle factors, biomarkers, and health assessments—this approach moves beyond conventional nutrient-centric models to account for total dietary substance exposure. In doing so, it facilitates the optimization of nutrient intake, bioactive compound diversity, and exposure minimization, thereby supporting metabolic efficiency, cognitive performance, and long-term health outcomes. The resulting dietary plans are both evidence-informed and dynamically adaptable, providing a practical framework for achieving individualized health optimization within real-world contexts. What follows are structured prompt frameworks illustrating how AI-ASID–aligned weekly menu plans can be generated using large language models such as ChatGPT. The following examples illustrate structured prompt frameworks that may be used to generate AI-ASID–aligned weekly meal plans through large language models such as ChatGPT. These prompts demonstrate how multidimensional health data can be translated into personalized dietary recommendations consistent with the principles of systems biology, precision nutrition, and exposomic risk reduction.
Prompt 1; AI-ASID Weekly Dietary Plan (Full Health Profile Optimization) "Create a comprehensive weekly menu plan based on the AI-Driven All-Substances Inclusive Diet (AI-ASID) framework. The dietary plan should be tailored to the following demographic and individual profile:"
The menu should provide nutritionally balanced meals for each day of the week and align with the core principles of the AI-ASID framework, including: Total substance exposure awareness (nutrients, bioactive compounds, and potential dietary contaminants)
For each day, present clearly structured meal recommendations for:
Each meal should incorporate a balanced representation of all food groups:
Additionally, for each main meal (breakfast, lunch, and dinner), include illustrative images that visually represent the prepared dishes. The final output should be organized, clearly labeled by day, and suitable for practical implementation, with an emphasis on both nutritional completeness and real-world feasibility. Evaluating the Health Quality of Foods, via the Grade Letter and GPA Scores It is recommended that the nutritional quality and overall healthfulness of all proposed foods, snacks, and meals be evaluated using the AI-Driven Nutritional Letter Grade–Score and Nutritional Grade Point Average (GPA) framework. This assessment approach provides a standardized method for comparing foods and dietary patterns according to their potential contributions to metabolic, physiological, cognitive, and long-term health outcomes. A letter grade represents the overall nutritional quality of a food item, meal, or dietary pattern based on predefined evaluation criteria. These criteria may include nutrient density, caloric balance, fiber content, glycemic load, fatty acid composition, sodium and added sugar content, degree of processing, presence of additives, contaminants, or other potentially harmful exposures, and associations with chronic disease risk. Additional considerations may include microbiome-supportive properties, inflammatory potential, cumulative toxic burden, and broader exposomic influences on health. Foods, meals, and dietary patterns that strongly support physiological, metabolic, and neurocognitive health receive higher grades, whereas those associated with nutritional inadequacy, metabolic dysregulation, excessive processing, or adverse health outcomes receive lower grades. The corresponding Nutritional GPA serves as a quantitative summary index that complements the letter grade by providing a more granular assessment of overall nutritional quality and health impact. Together, the Nutritional Letter Grade and Nutritional GPA provide accessible summary metrics that facilitate the evaluation of individual foods, meals, dietary patterns, and total dietary exposure. Within the AI-ASID framework, these measures function as practical tools for translating complex nutritional, toxicological, and exposomic information into interpretable indicators that can support dietary decision-making and personalized nutrition planning. For a detailed description of the methodology, scoring criteria, and interpretation of results, please refer to the section entitled AI-Driven Nutritional Letter Grade and Nutritional Grade Point Average (GPA) Framework.
Prompt 2: AI-ASID Weekly Menu Plan (HQ, MHQ & BAQ–Focused, Domain Personalization). The Health, Mental, and Biological Age Quotients Assessment "Create a comprehensive weekly menu plan based on the AI-Driven All-Substances Inclusive Diet (AI-ASID) framework. The menu should be developed using only my Health Quotient (HQ) and Mental Health Quotient (MHQ) components of my assessment profile (provided below), while excluding Biological Age Quotient (BAQ) considerations." The dietary plan must be personalized using single or multiple selected domains from the assessment data (e.g., lifestyle factors, blood biomarkers, clinical/medical history, or genetic markers). The purpose of this prompt is to target domain-specific dietary optimization may be achieved without relying on the full multidimensional profile. Requirements: 1. Structure of the Menu:
2. AI-ASID Framework Alignment:
3, Nutritional Principles:
4. Personalization Constraint
5. Output Expectations
Additionally, for each main meal (breakfast, lunch, and dinner), include illustrative images that visually represent the prepared dishes. The final output should be organized, clearly labeled by day, and suitable for practical implementation, with an emphasis on both nutritional completeness and real-world feasibility. Collectively, these prompt frameworks illustrate how the AI-ASID model can be operationalized through artificial intelligence–assisted meal planning. By integrating demographic, clinical, behavioral, environmental, and biological information, AI-generated dietary plans can be tailored to individual health profiles while accounting for nutrient adequacy, bioactive compound diversity, cumulative exposure burden, and long-term health objectives. As such, AI-ASID meal planning represents a practical application of systems biology, precision nutrition, and exposomic principles within personalized dietary intervention. The HQ, MHQ, and BAQ Assessment as a Foundation for Personalized Health and Nutrition Interventions The Health Quotient (HQ), Mental Health Quotient (MHQ), and Biological Age Quotient (BAQ) assessment constitute a comprehensive, integrative tool designed to support the personalization of health optimization strategies and or interventions. Grounded in a systems-based framework, this assessment enables the systematic evaluation of biological, behavioral, and clinical factors that collectively influence individual health outcomes. Given that dietary patterns vary substantially across cultural contexts, geographic regions, and individual preferences—and that human biological systems exhibit significant interindividual variability—the HQ, MHQ, and BAQ assessment functions as a personalized foundational instrument upon which targeted nutritional and lifestyle, and preventive health strategies can be developed. In this way, the assessment provides a structured basis for tailoring interventions to align with the unique physiological profile, exposures, and needs of each individual, thereby enhancing precision and effectiveness in health optimization. Empirical and Theoretical Support for the AI-Driven All-Substances Inclusive Diet (AI-ASID) The AI-Driven All-Substances Inclusive Diet (AI-ASID) is a conceptual precision-nutrition framework grounded in systems biology, exposomics, metabolomics, microbiome science, nutritional neuroscience, and related disciplines. Rather than viewing diet solely as a source of macronutrients and micronutrients, AI-ASID conceptualizes dietary intake as a complex matrix of biologically active substances that interact with metabolic, inflammatory, endocrine, immune, microbial, and neurocognitive systems across the lifespan. Preliminary theoretical analyses and emerging empirical evidence suggest that dietary patterns emphasizing nutrient density, dietary diversity, minimally processed foods, and reduced exposure to potentially harmful substances may be associated with more favorable outcomes across multiple domains of health. These domains include composite indices such as the Health Quotient (HQ), Mental Quotient (MQ), and Biological Age Quotient (BAQ), as well as cardiometabolic biomarkers, anthropometric measures, inflammatory markers, and cognitive performance indicators. Collectively, these observations are consistent with a graded relationship between total dietary exposure quality and systemic health, as proposed by contemporary systems-biology and exposomic models of disease risk. Metabolomic and Systems-Biology Perspectives From a metabolomics perspective, dietary patterns exert their effects through the modulation of circulating metabolites, metabolic networks, and biochemical pathway activity. Nutrient-dense dietary patterns, such as those emphasized within the AI-ASID framework, are associated with metabolic signatures indicative of improved substrate availability, more efficient energy metabolism, enhanced redox regulation, and greater biochemical support for neurotransmitter synthesis, cellular repair, mitochondrial function, and immune regulation. In contrast, dietary patterns characterized by high consumption of ultra-processed foods may be associated with metabolomic profiles reflecting impaired metabolic flexibility, increased oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, altered lipid metabolism, insulin resistance, and pro-inflammatory signaling. These metabolic perturbations have been implicated in the pathogenesis of cardiometabolic disorders, neurocognitive decline, mood dysregulation, immune dysfunction, and other chronic disease processes. A systems-biology perspective further suggests that these effects do not occur in isolation. Metabolic, endocrine, immune, microbial, and neural systems are dynamically interconnected. For example, impaired glucose regulation may contribute to vascular dysfunction and neuroinflammation; chronic inflammation may disrupt neurotransmitter metabolism and synaptic plasticity; and mitochondrial dysfunction may compromise both physical energy regulation and cognitive performance. Therefore, dietary exposure quality may influence health through multiple interacting pathways rather than through a single linear mechanism. Within this framework, AI-ASID proposes that optimal dietary patterns should be evaluated according to their capacity to support system-wide physiological regulation. This includes not only meeting recommended nutrient intakes but also minimizing cumulative exposure to substances that may increase metabolic burden, inflammatory activation, endocrine disruption, oxidative stress, or microbiome imbalance. Exposomic Foundations of the AI-ASID Framework The AI-ASID framework is further informed by exposomics, which conceptualizes health as the cumulative consequence of environmental, behavioral, dietary, social, and biological exposures across the lifespan. From this perspective, diet represents one of the most continuous and modifiable exposure domains. Every meal introduces not only essential nutrients but also additives, contaminants, processing-derived compounds, packaging-related chemicals, pesticide residues, heavy metals, endocrine-disrupting chemicals, microplastics, and other biologically active substances. Contemporary food environments—particularly those characterized by substantial consumption of ultra-processed foods—may increase exposure to a diverse range of substances that are not typically captured in conventional nutrient-based dietary assessment. These include emulsifiers, artificial sweeteners, colorants, preservatives, advanced glycation end products, oxidized lipids, plasticizers, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and contaminants derived from processing, packaging, storage, or environmental pollution. Although the health effects of individual substances vary, the central concern within an exposomic framework is cumulative exposure burden and the possibility of additive, synergistic, or interactive biological effects. By systematically accounting for total dietary substance exposure, the AI-ASID framework extends beyond traditional nutrient-centric approaches. It incorporates nutritional adequacy, dietary diversity, food-processing intensity, contaminant exposure, inflammatory potential, endocrine effects, microbiome effects, and broader physiological consequences. This perspective provides a more comprehensive framework for evaluating dietary risk while simultaneously supporting optimal nutrient intake and physiological resilience. Gut Microbiome and Immune Regulation The gut microbiome represents an additional mechanistic pathway through which dietary exposures influence systemic health. Diets rich in fiber, polyphenols, resistant starches, fermented foods, and diverse plant-derived compounds promote microbial diversity and stimulate the production of beneficial metabolites, including short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs). SCFAs contribute to intestinal barrier integrity, immune modulation, metabolic regulation, appetite signaling, and gut–brain communication. In contrast, dietary patterns dominated by ultra-processed foods have been associated with reduced microbial diversity, altered microbial metabolism, weakened intestinal barrier function, and increased production of pro-inflammatory metabolites. Such changes may contribute to low-grade systemic inflammation, insulin resistance, altered satiety regulation, and neuroimmune signaling changes that influence mood, cognition, and behavior. Within the AI-ASID framework, optimization of total dietary exposure is hypothesized to support a more favorable microbiome profile. This may occur through increased intake of fermentable fibers, phytochemicals, and minimally processed foods, alongside reduced exposure to dietary substances that may adversely affect microbial ecology or intestinal barrier function. In this sense, the microbiome functions as both a mediator and modifier of diet-related health outcomes: it helps explain how diet affects systemic physiology, while also influencing individual variability in response to dietary exposures. Biological Aging and the Biological Age Quotient (BAQ) The Biological Age Quotient (BAQ) provides a conceptual framework linking dietary exposure to biological aging trajectories. Theoretically, optimization of total dietary substance exposure may contribute to reductions in cumulative metabolic stress, oxidative damage, and chronic low-grade inflammation, all of which are recognized contributors to accelerated biological aging. Consequently, adherence to dietary patterns aligned with AI-ASID principles may be associated with physiological burden contribute to age-related decline across multiple organ systems. Accordingly, the potential benefits of dietary optimization may be particularly relevant in older adults, for whom cumulative exposure effects become increasingly important determinants of health outcomes. Cognitive Functioning and Neurocognitive Resilience Cognitive outcomes provide an additional line of theoretical and empirical support for the AI-ASID framework. Enhanced performance across multiple domains—including learning, memory, executive functioning, attention, processing speed, and psychomotor performance—may be influenced by several interacting pathways linking dietary quality to brain health. These pathways include improved vascular function, enhanced glycemic regulation, adequate micronutrient availability, increased intake of neuroprotective bioactive compounds, and reductions in oxidative stress and neuroinflammation. Within the AI-ASID framework, these mechanisms are addressed through the systematic evaluation and optimization of total dietary substance exposure. By promoting nutritional adequacy while minimizing exposure to potentially harmful compounds, the framework seeks to support mitochondrial function, neuronal integrity, synaptic plasticity, and broader neurobiological resilience. Consequently, individuals adhering to dietary patterns consistent with AI-ASID principles may exhibit improved cognitive performance and greater resistance to age-related neurocognitive decline, although further empirical validation is required. If formally evaluated through mediation analyses, improvements in metabolic and inflammatory biomarkers would be plausible intermediary mechanisms linking dietary exposure to cognitive outcomes. Specifically, reductions in systemic inflammatory markers (e.g., high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hs-CRP]) and improvements in metabolic regulation (e.g., insulin sensitivity and glycemic stability) may partially explain observed differences in cognitive performance. Such a hypothesis is consistent with a substantial body of literature demonstrating that inflammatory and metabolic states exert important influences on brain function, cognitive performance, and neurodegenerative risk. Conceptual Synthesis Taken together, these converging lines of evidence support a multidimensional systems-biology framework in which dietary exposure functions as a major determinant of health across interconnected physiological domains. Within this perspective, diet is conceptualized not merely as a source of isolated nutrients but as a complex matrix of biologically active substances that collectively influence metabolic regulation, inflammatory processes, neurocognitive functioning, immune competence, microbiome ecology, endocrine signaling, and biological aging. These processes emerge through dynamic interactions among cellular metabolism, mitochondrial function, endocrine regulation, immune communication, gut microbial activity, vascular function, and neural networks. The AI-ASID framework therefore emphasizes the importance of adopting an integrative whole-exposure perspective when evaluating diet and health. Such a model recognizes that the health effects of diet are shaped not only by what nutrients are present but also by what substances are absent, excessive, harmful, synergistic, or accumulated over time. In this sense, AI-ASID provides a conceptual bridge between nutrition science, exposomics, systems biology, and precision health. Its central proposition is that optimal dietary assessment should account for both nutritional adequacy and cumulative exposure quality. By doing so, the framework offers a more comprehensive approach to understanding how diet may influence cardiometabolic health, cognitive functioning, immune resilience, biological aging, and long-term disease risk. References Adhikary, K., Ganguly, K., Sarkar, R., et al. (2025). Phytonutrients and their neuroprotective role in brain disorders. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences, 12, Article 1607330. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2025.1607330 Afshin, A., Sur, P. J., Fay, K. A., et al. (2020). Health effects of dietary risks in 195 countries: 1990–2017: A systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study. The Lancet, 393(10184), 1958–1972. doi10.1016/S0140-6736(19)30041-8 Aparicio-Trejo, O. E., Hernández-Cruz, E. Y., et al. (2025). The role of redox signaling in mitochondria and endoplasmic reticulum regulation in kidney diseases. Archives of Toxicology, 99(5), 1865–1891. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00204-025-04041-z Arnsten, A. F. T. (2009). Stress signalling pathways that impair prefrontal cortex structure and function. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2648 Arnsten, A. F. T. (2015). Stress weakens prefrontal networks: Molecular insults to higher cognition. Nature Neuroscience, 18(10), 1376–1385. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4087 Arnsten, A. F. T., Datta, D., Del Tredici, K., & Braak, H. (2021). Hypothesis: Tau pathology is an initiating factor in sporadic Alzheimer’s disease. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 17(1), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1002/alz.12192 Barabási, A.-L., Menichetti, G., & Loscalzo, J. (2019). The unmapped chemical complexity of our diet. Nature Food, 1(1), 33–37.https://doi.org/10.1038/s43016-019-0005-1 Barra, N. G., Fang, H., Bhatwa, A., et al. (2025). Food supply toxicants and additives alter the gut microbiota and risk of metabolic disease. American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism, 328(3), E337-E353. doi:10.1152/ajpendo.00364.202 Bernal, J. (2007). Thyroid hormone receptors in brain development and function. Nature Clinical Practice Endocrinology & Metabolism, 3(3), 249–259. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncpendmet0424 Bishehsari, F., Magno, E., Swanson, G., et al. (2017). Alcohol and Gut-Derived Inflammation. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews, 38(2):163-171. doi:10.35946/arcr/v38.2.02 Cadet, J. L., & Bisagno, V. (2016) Neuropsychological consequences of chronic drug use: Relevance to treatment approaches. Frontiers in Psychiatry 6. Article 189. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2015.00189 Cadet, J. L., & Krasnova, I. N. (2009). Molecular bases of methamphetamine-induced neurodegeneration. International Review of Neurobiology, 88, 101–119.https://doi.org/10.1016/s0074-7742(09)88005-7 Calder, P. C. (2020). Nutrition, immunity and COVID-19. BMJ Nutrition: Prevention & Health, 3(1), 74–92. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjnph-2020-000085 Carabotti, M., Scirocco, A., Maselli, M. A., & Severi, C. (2015). The gut–brain axis. Annals of Gastroenterology, 28(2), 203–209. https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2015.0023 Chakif, D., & Furrer, J. (2026). The impact of nutritional, environmental, and lifestyle factors on neurological disorders: Therapeutic implications and mechanistic insights. Frontiers in Pharmacology, 17, 1765786. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2026.1765786 Chassaing, B., Koren, O., Goodrich, J., et al. (2015). Dietary emulsifiers impact the mouse gut microbiota promoting colitis and metabolic syndrome. Nature, 519(7541), 92–96 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14232 Clemente-Suárez, V. J., et al. (2025). Neuro-nutrition and exercise synergy: Exploring the bioengineering of cognitive enhancement and mental health optimization. Bioengineering, 12(2), Article 208. https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12020208 Cryan, J. F., O’Riordan, K. J., Cowan, C. S. M., et al. (2022). The microbiota–gut–brain axis. Physiological Reviews, 102(4), 1877–2013.https://doi10.1152/physrev.00018.2018 Cryan, J. F., O’Riordan, K. J., Cowan, C. S. M., Sandhu, K. V., Bastiaanssen, T. F. S., Boehme, M., … Dinan, T. G. (2019). The microbiota–gut–brain axis. Physiological Reviews, 99(4), 1877–2013. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00018.2018. Dantzer, R., O'Connor, J., Freund, G., et al. (2008), From inflammation to sickness and depression: When the immune system subjugates the brain. Nature Reviews Neurocience, 9, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2297 Das, S., Banerjee, P., Jana, S., & Mondal, H. (2025). Unveiling the mechanistic nexus: How micronutrient enrichment shapes brain function, and cognitive health. Frontiers in Molecular Biosciences,12, 1623547.https://doi.org/10.3389/fmolb.2025.1623547 Dhabhar, F. S. (2018) The short-term stress response: Mother nature's mechanism for enhancing protection and performance under conditions of threat, challenge, and opportunity. Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology, 49,175-192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yfrne.2018.03.004 Di Giacomo, M., Zara, V., Bergamo, P., & Ferramosca, A. (2020). Crosstalk between mitochondrial metabolism and oxidoreductive homeostasis: A new perspective for understanding the effects of bioactive dietary compounds. Nutrition Research Reviews, 33(1):90-101. doi:10.1017/S0954422419000210 Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750 Dietrich, M., Block, G., Norkus, E. P., et al. (2003). Smoking and exposure to environmental tobacco smoke decrease some plasma antioxidants and increase γ-tocopherol in vivo after adjustment for dietary antioxidant intakes. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 77(1), 160–166. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/77.1.160 Ellis, B. J., Sheridan, M. A., Belsky, J., & McLaughlin, K. A. (2022). Why and how does early adversity influence development? Toward an integrated model of dimensions of environmental experience. Development and Psychopathology, 34(2), 447–471. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579421001838 Eskola, M., Kos, G., Elliott, C. T., et al. (2020). Worldwide contamination of food-crops with mycotoxins: Validity of the widely cited “FAO estimate” of 25%. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 60(16), 2773–2789. doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2019.1658570 European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). (2023). Re-evaluation of food additives and safety assessment frameworks in the European Union. EFSA Journal, 21(1), e07856. https://doi.org/10.2903/j.efsa.2023.7856 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). (2024). Genome editing in food and agriculture: Current status and regulatory perspectives. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Franceschi, C., Garagnani, P., Parini, P., Guiliani, C., & Santoro, A. (2018). Inflammaging: A new immune–metabolic viewpoint for age-related diseases. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 14:576–590. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-018-0059-4 Furman, D., Campisi, J., Verdin, E., et al. (2021). Chronic inflammation in the etiology of disease across the life span. Nature Medicine, 25(12), 1822–1832.doi10.1038/s41591-019-0675-0 Godos, J., Currenti, W., Angelino, D., et al. (2020). Diet and Mental Health: Review of the Recent Updates on Molecular Mechanisms. Antioxidants, 9(4), Article 346.https://doi.org/10.3390/antiox9040346 Grosso, G., Galvano, F., Marventano, S., et al. (2014). Omega-3 fatty acids and depression: Scientific evidence and biological mechanisms. Oxidative Medicine and Cellular Longevity, 2014, Article 313570.https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/313570 Hackett, R.A., Steptoe, A. (2016). Psychosocial Factors in Diabetes and Cardiovascular Risk. Current Cardiology Reports, 18, Article 95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-016-0771-4 Han, V. X., Patel, S., Jones, H. F., & Dale, R. C. (2021). Maternal immune activation and neuroinflammation in human neurodevelopmental disorders. Nature Reviews Neurology, 17, 564–579. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-021-00530-8 Hao, Y., & Sabihi, S. S. (2025), Neurobiological synergy of plant and animal sources of omega-3 and exercise in aging: Implications for molecular signaling, memory, spatial learning, and brain function. FoodScience & Nutrition, 13(9): Article e70866. doi: 10.1002/fsn3.70866. Haroon, E., Raison, C. & Miller, A. (2012). Psychoneuroimmunology Meets Neuropsychopharmacology: Translational Implications of the Impact of Inflammation on Behavior. Neuropsychopharmacology, 37, 137–162. https://doi.org/10.1038/npp.2011.205 Hotamisligil, G. S. (2017). Inflammation, metaflammation and immunometabolic disorders. Nature, 542(7640), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21363 Hotamisligil, G. S. (2022). Inflammation, metaflammation and immunometabolic disorders. Nature, 542(7640), 177–185. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature21363 International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). (2023). Global status of commercialized biotech/GM crops. ISAAA Brief. No. 57. ISAAA Jaishankar, M., Tseten, T., Anbalagan, N., Mathew, B. B., &Beeregowda, K. N. (2014). Toxicity, mechanism, and health effects of some heavy metals. Interdisciplinary Toxicology, 7(2), 60–72.doi: 10.2478/intox-2014-0009 Jarvis, H., O’Keefe, H., Craig, D., Stow, D., Hanratty, B., & Anstee, Q. M. (2022). Does moderate alcohol consumption accelerate the progression of liver disease in NAFLD? A systematic review and narrative synthesis. BMJ Open, 12(1), Article e049767. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049767 Johnson, D., Policelli, J., Li, M., Dharamsi, A., et al. (2021). Associations of early-life threat and deprivation with executive functioning in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics, 175(11), Article e212511. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.2511 Joseph, J. J., & Golden, S. H., (2018). Cortisol dysregulation: the bidirectional link between stress, depression, and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1391(1), 20-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13217 Juruena, M. F., Bocharova, M., Agustini, B., & Young, A. H. (2020). Atypical depression and non-atypical depression: Is HPA axis function a biomarker? A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 233, 45–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2017.09.052 Kivimäki, M., & Steptoe, A. (2018). Effects of stress on health. Nature Reviews Cardiology, 15(4), 215–229. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrcardio.2017.189 Knize, M. G., & Felton, J. S. (2005). Formation and human risk of carcinogenic heterocyclic amines formed from natural precursors in meat. Nutrition Reviews, 63(5), 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2005.tb00133.x Krishnan, V., Nestler, E. The molecular neurobiology of depression. Nature, 455, 894–902 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature07455 Kulkarni, A. S., Aleksic, S., Berger, D. M., Sierra, F., Kuchel, G. A., & Barzilai, N. (2022). Geroscience-guided repurposing of FDA-approved drugs to target aging: A proposed process and prioritization. Aging Cell, 21(4), Article e13596. doi: 10.1111/acel.13596. Kyrou, I., Chrousos, G. P., &Tsigos, C. (2006). Stress, visceral obesity, and metabolic complications. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1501(1), 27–43. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1367.008 Lane, M. M., et al. (2024). Ultra-processed foods and health outcomes: Umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. BMJ, 384, e077310. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077310 Lashin, B., Aldalil, S. S., Hefnawy, M. T., et al. (2025). The role of diet in supporting neuroplasticity and promoting brain resilience. In W. Mohamed & A. A. Özge (Eds.), Feeding the mind: The connection between diet, drugs, and mental health: Volume 2 (pp. 141–171). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-95-1983-5_7 Lassale, C., Batty, G. D., Baghdadli, A., et al. (2019). Healthy dietary indices and risk of depressive outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Molecular Psychiatry, 24, 965–986 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0237-8 Leslie, H. A., van Velzen, M. J. M., Brandsma, S. H., et al. (2020). Discovery and quantification of plastic particle pollution in human blood. Environment International, 163, Article107199. https://doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2022.107199 Levin, M., (2024). The Role of Neuroinflammation in Psychiatric Disorders. Neuroscience and Psychiatry: Open Access, 7(5), 265–267. http://doi:10.47532/npoa.2024.7(5).265-267 Li, P., Qu, R., Li, M., Sheng, P., Jin, L., Huang, X., & Xu, Z. Z. (2024). Impacts of food additives on gut microbiota and host health. Food Research International, 196, 114998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2024.114998. Li, Y., & Bi, H.-Y. (2022). Comparative research on neural dysfunction in children with dyslexia under different writing systems: A meta-analysis study. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 137, Article 104650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2022.104650 Liston, C., McEwen, B. S., & Casey, B. J. (2009). Psychosocial stress reversibly disrupts prefrontal processing and attentional control. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(3), 912–917. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0807041106 López-Otín, C, Blasco, M. A., Partridge, L., Serrano, M., & Kroemer, G. (2013). The hallmarks of aging. Cell, 153(6):1194-1217. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2013. Lord, C., Brugha, T. S., Charman, T., et al. (2020). Autism spectrum disorder. Nature Reviews Disease Primers, 6(1), Article 5. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-019-0138-4 Lupien, S., McEwen, B., Gunnar, M. R., et al. (2009). Effects of stress throughout the lifespan on the brain, behaviour and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10, 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2639 Mattson, P., & Arumugam, T. V. (2018). Hallmarks of Brain Aging: Adaptive and Pathological Modification by Metabolic States. Cell Metabolism, 27(6), 1176-1199.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmet.2018.05.011 McEwen, B. S., & Akil, H. (2020). Revisiting the stress concept: Implications for affective disorders. Journal of Neuroscience, 40(1), 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0733-19.2019 Meng, Q., Mäkinen, V.-P., Luk, H., & Yang, X. (2013). Systems biology approaches and applications in obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular diseases. Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports, 37(6), 9984. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12170-012-0280-y Menichetti, G., Barabási, A. L., & Loscalzo, J. (2024). Decoding the foodome: Molecular networks connecting diet and health. Annual Review of Nutrition, 44(1): 257-288. doi: 10.1146/annurev-nutr-062322-030557 Mikkelsen, K., Stojanovska, L., & Apostolopoulos, V. (2017), The effects of vitamin B on the immune/cytokine network and their involvement in depression. Maturitas, 96, 58-71. doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2016.11.012. Miller, J. G., Chahal, R., & Gotlib, I. H. (2022). Early life stress and neurodevelopment in adolescence: Implications for risk and adaptation. Current Topics in Behavioral Neurosciences, 54, 313–339. https://doi.org/10.1007/7854_2022_302 Miranda-Massari, J. R., Gonzalez, M. J., Soler, J. D., & Riordan, N. H. (2022). A proposed guide for interpretation of plasma ascorbate concentrations. Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine, 37(1), p1 Morais, L. H., Schreiber, H. L., & Mazmanian, S. K. (2021). The gut microbiota–brain axis in behaviour and brain disorders. Nature Reviews Microbiology, 19(4), 241–255. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-020-00460-0 Moummou, H., & Britel, I. (2026). Nutrition, gut–brain axis, and cognitive health. In M. Afzall, F. Saeed, & A. Ahmed (Eds.), Probiotic: Health optimization, therapeutic roles, and disease prevention potential (pp. 1–18). IntechOpen. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.1014012 Naureen, Z., Cristoni, S., Donato, K., et al. (2022). Metabolomics application for the design of an optimal diet. Journal of Preventive Medicine and Hygiene, 17(63) (2 Suppl 3): E142-E149. http://doi: 10.15167/2421-4248/jpmh2022.63.2S3.2755 Nayak, S. P. R. R., et al (2025). Exposure to bisphenol A and sodium nitrate found in processed meat induces endocrine disruption and dyslipidemia through PI3K/AKT/SREBP pathway in zebrafish larvae. The Journal of Nutritional Biochemistry, 140, Article 109887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnutbio.2025.109887 O'Connor, D. B., Thayer, J. F., & Vedhara, K. 2021. Stress and Health: A Review of Psychobiological Processes. Annual Review Psychology. 72: 663-688. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-062520-122331 Pariza, M. W., & Johnson, E. A. (2001). Evaluating the safety of microbial enzyme preparations used in food processing. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 33(2), 173-186. https://doi.org/10.1006/rtph.2001.1466 Pavlov, V., Tracey, K. (2017). Neural regulation of immunity: Molecular mechanisms and clinical translation. Nature Neuroscience, 20, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4477 Peper, J. S., van den Heuvel, M. P., Mandl, R. C. W., et al. (2011). Sex steroids and connectivity in the human brain: A review of neuroimaging studies. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 36(8), 1101–1113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2011.05.004 Perry, V. H., & Holmes, C. (2014). Microglial priming in neurodegenerative disease. Nature Reviews Neurology,10, 217–224. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrneurol.2014.38 Purves, D., Augustine, G. J., Fitzpatrick, D., Hall, W. C., LaMantia, A.-S., Mooney, R. D., Platt, M. L., & White, L. E. (2018). Neuroscience (6th ed.). Oxford University Press. Rusch, J. A., Layden, B. T., & Dugas, L. R. (2023). Signalling cognition: The gut microbiota and hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis. Frontiers in Endocrinology, 14, Article 1031651. http://doi:10.3389/fendo.2023.1130689 Russell, G., & Lightman, S. (2019). The human stress response. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 15(9), 525-534. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-019-0228-0 Scarpulla, R. C. (2011). Metabolic control of mitochondrial biogenesis through the PGC-1 family regulatory network. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA)-Molecular Cell Research, 1813(7), 1269-1278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbamcr.2010.09.019 Seto, T., Grondin, J. A., & Khan, W. I. (2025). Food additives: Emerging detrimental roles on gut health. The FASEB Journal, 39(13), Article e70810.https://doi.org/10.1096/fj.202500737R Slavich, G. M., & Irwin, M. R. (2014). From stress to inflammation and major depressive disorder: A social signal transduction theory of depression. Psychological Bulletin, 140(3), 774–815. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035302 Smith, K. E., & Pollak, S. D. (2020). Early life stress and development: Potential mechanisms for adverse outcomes. Journal of Neurodevelopmental Disorders, 12, Article 34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s11689-020-09337-y Srour, B., Kordahi, M. C., Bonazzi, E., Deschasaux-Tanguy, M., et al. (2022). Ultra-processed foods and human health: From epidemiological evidence to mechanistic insights. The lancet Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 7(12), 1128-1140.doi:10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00169-8 Steensels, J., Gallone, B., Voordeckers, K., &Verstrepen, K. J. (2024). Domestication of industrial microbes. Current Biology, 29(10), R3810R393. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2019.04.025 Suomalainen, A., & Nunnari, J. (2024). Mitochondria at the crossroads of health and disease. Cell, 187(11), 2601–2627. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2024.04.037 Taylor, P. N., Albrecht, D., Scholz, A., Gutierrez-Buey, G., Lazarus, J. H., Dayan, C. M., & Okosieme, O. E. (2018). Global epidemiology of hyperthyroidism and hypothyroidism. Nature Reviews Endocrinology, 14(5), 301–316. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrendo.2018.18 Thapar, A., Cooper, M., Jefferies, R., & Stergiakouli, E. (2012). What causes attention deficit hyperactivity disorder? Archives of Disease in Childhood, 97(3), 260–265. https://doi.org/10.1136/archdischild-2011-300482 Tottenham, N., & Galván, A. (2016). Stress and the adolescent brain: Amygdala-prefrontal cortex circuitry and ventral striatum as developmental targets. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 70, 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.07.030 U.S. Food and Drug Administration. (2022). Substances generally recognized as safe (GRAS). https://www.fda.gov/food/food-ingredients-packaging/generally-recognized-safe-gras U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2010). FDA should strengthen its oversight of food ingredients determined to be generally recognized as safe (GRAS) (GAO-10-246). https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-10-246 Ulrich-Lai, Y. M., & Herman, J. P. (2009). Neural regulation of endocrine and autonomic stress responses. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 397–409. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2647 Van Eenennaam, A. L. (2017). Genetic modification of food animals. Current Opinion in Biotechnology, 44, 27-34.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copbio.2016.10.007 van Zonneveld, S. M., et al. (2024). An anti-inflammatory diet and its potential benefit for individuals with mental disorders and neurodegenerative diseases-A Narrative Review. Nutrients, 16(16), Article 2646. doi: 10.3390/nu16162646. Vijayakumar, N., Op de Macks, Z., Shirtcliff, E. A., & Pfeifer, J. H. (2018). Puberty and the human brain: Insights into adolescent development. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 92, 417–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.06.004 Vineis, P., Chadeau-Hyam, M., Gmuender, H. (2017) and the EXPOsOMICS Consortium. (2017), The exposome in practice: Design of the EXPOsOMICS project. International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 220(2 Pt A):142-151https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2016.08.001. Volkow, N. D., & Boyle, M. (2018). Neuroscience of addiction: Relevance to prevention and treatment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 175(8), 729–740.https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2018.1710117 Volkow, N. D., Koob, G. F., & McLellan, A. T. (2016). Neurobiologic advances from the brain disease model of addiction. New England Journal of Medicine, 374(4), 363–371.doi 10.1056/NEJMra1511480 Volkow, N. D., Michaelides, M., & Baler, R. (2021). The neuroscience of drug reward and addiction. Physiological Reviews, 101(4), 2115–2140. https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00014.2020 Walker, M. (2017). Why we sleep: Unlocking the power of sleep and dreams. Scribner. Wan, M., Simonin, E. M., Johnson, M. M., et al. (2025). Exposomics: a review of methodologies, applications, and future directions in molecular medicine. EMBO Mol Med. 2025 Apr;17(4):599-608. doi: 10.1038/s44321-025-00191-w Wang, H., Bai, J., Miao, P., Wei, Y., Chen, X., Lan, H., ... & Yang, X. (2024). The key to intestinal health: A review and perspective on food additives. Frontiers in Nutrition, 11, Article 1420358.https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2024.1420358 Wang, J., Liu, S. Xie, Y. & Xu, C., et al. (2023). Association analysis of gutmicrobiota–metabolites-neuroendocrine axes. Scientific Reports, 13, 35573. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-023-35573-y Weaver, C. M., Dwyer, J., Fulgoni, V. L., et al. (2021). Processed foods and nutrition. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 99(6), 1525–1542.https://doi.org/10.3945/ajcn.114.089284 World Health Organization. (2023). Diet, nutrition and the prevention of chronic diseases. WHO/FAO Expert Consultation (WHO Technical Report Series No. 916). World Health Organization (WHO). Yoo, E. S., Yu, J., & Sohn, H.-W. (2021). Neuroendocrine control of appetite and metabolism. Experimental & Molecular Medicine, 53(3), 505–516.https://doi.org/10.1038/s12276-021-00597-9 Zengeler, K. E., & Lukens, J. R. (2021). Innate immunity at the crossroads of healthy brain maturation and neurodevelopmental disorders. Nature Reviews Immunology, 21, 454–468. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41577-020-00487-7 Zhang Y, Massel K, Godwin ID, & Gao C. (2018). Applications and potential of genome editing in crop improvement. Genome Biology, 19(1):210. doi: 10.1186/s13059-018-1586-y Zhang, B., & Schmidlin, T. (2024). Recent advances in cardiovascular disease research driven by metabolomics technologies in the context of systems biology. npj Metabolic Health and Disease, 2, Article 25.https://doi.org/10.1038/s44324-024-00028-z Zinöcker, M. K., & Lindseth, I. A. (2018). The Western diet–microbiome–host interaction and its role in metabolic disease (updated review frameworks). Nutrients, 10(3), 365. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu10030365 Zong, Y., Li, H., Liao, P., et al., (2024). Mitochondrial dysfunction: Mechanisms and advances in disease and therapy. Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy, 9(1), 124. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41392-024-01839-8 Zinkow, A., Grodzicki, M., Czerwińska, M., & Dziendzikowska, K. (2025), Molecular mechanisms linking omega-3 fatty acids and the gut–brain axis. Molecules, 30(1), 71. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules30010071
Self-Help Books Myers, A., M.D. (2016). The thyroid connection. Little, Brown and Company. Korn, L., M.D. (2016). Nutrition essential for mental heath. W. W. Norton & Company. LaValle, J. B., R. Ph., C.C.N., N.D. (2004). Cracking the metabolic code. Basic Health Publications, Inc. Poon’s P., Ph.D., M.D. (2009). Dr. Poon’s metabolic diet. Ontario Nutrition Company, Inc.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||