Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31129888›Full record

ReviewCurrent nutrition reports2019

Nutritional Metabolomics in Cancer Epidemiology: Current Trends, Challenges, and Future Directions.

Emma E McGee, Rama Kiblawi, Mary C Playdon, A Heather Eliassen

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Current nutrition reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Emma E McGeeChanning Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. emcgee@hsph.harvard.edu.
Rama KiblawiDivision of Cancer Population Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
Mary C PlaydonDivision of Cancer Population Sciences, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA.
A Heather EliassenChanning Division of Network Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewMetabolomics offers several opportunities for advancement in nutritional cancer epidemiology; however, numerous research gaps and challenges remain. This narrative review summarizes current research, challenges, and future directions for epidemiologic studies of nutritional metabolomics and cancer. RECENT

findingsAlthough many studies have used metabolomics to investigate either dietary exposures or cancer, few studies have explicitly investigated diet-cancer relationships using metabolomics. Most studies have been relatively small (≤ ~ 250 cases) or have assessed a limited number of nutritional metabolites (e.g., coffee or alcohol-related metabolites). Nutritional metabolomic investigations of cancer face several challenges in study design; biospecimen selection, handling, and processing; diet and metabolite measurement; statistical analyses; and data sharing and synthesis. More metabolomics studies linking dietary exposures to cancer risk, prognosis, and survival are needed, as are biomarker validation studies, longitudinal analyses, and methodological studies. Despite the remaining challenges, metabolomics offers a promising avenue for future dietary cancer research.

Indexed as

Nutritional Physiological PhenomenaBiomarkers, TumorDietEpidemiologic StudiesHumansMetabolomeMetabolomicsNeoplasmsPrognosisBiomarkers, TumorBiomarkerCancerDietMetabolomicsNarrative reviewNutrition

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.