ArticleFrontiers in nutrition2022
Association between glucosamine use and cancer mortality: A large prospective cohort study.
Article in Frontiers in nutrition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Glucosamine induces apoptosis of cholangiocarcinoma cells by suppressing high-mannose typeFuture science OA · 2026Article
- Glucosamine Use and Its Association with Colorectal Cancer and Mortality: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of Cancer · 2026Article
- Association between glucosamine use and albuminuria in the UK: a cohort and Mendelian randomisation study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Glucose transporter 2‑transported glucosamine inhibits glycolysis in cancer cell lines through competition with glucose for hexokinase II.Oncology reports · 2025Article
- Glucosamine Inhibits the Proliferation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Cells by Eliciting Apoptosis, Autophagy, and the Anti-Warburg Effect.Scientifica · 2025Article
- Association between fish oil and glucosamine use and mortality in patients diagnosed with cancer: the role of the Life Essential 8 score and cancer prognosis.Nutrition journal · 2024Article
- Review
- Review
- Regular Glucosamine Use May Have Different Roles in the Risk of Site-Specific Cancers: Findings from a Large Prospective Cohort.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: Previous studies have shown anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory benefits of glucosamine. This study was performed to prospectively evaluate the association between glucosamine supplementation and the mortality of multiple cancers based on the UK Biobank cohort study. Materials and methods: A total of 453,645 participants aged 38-73 who had no cancer at baseline were recruited between 2006 and 2010 and followed until March 2021. We used cox and poission proportional hazards models to explore the association between habitual use of glucosamine and cancer mortality. Subgroup analyses were conducted to understand the potential effect modifications of demographics, lifestyle factors, and health outcomes. Sensitivity analyses were performed to determine the robustness of the results. Results: Of the participants, 88,224 (19.4%) reported habitual glucosamine use at baseline. There were 9,366 cancer deaths during a median follow-up of 12.1 years, and we observed a significant association between the use of glucosamine and lower overall cancer mortality (HR = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.90-1.00, Conclusion: Habitual glucosamine use was significantly related to decreased overall cancer, kidney cancer, lung cancer, and rectum cancer mortality, based on data from the large-scale, nationwide, prospective UK Biobank cohort study.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.