ArticleThe Journal of nutrition2023
Calcium Intake and Lung Cancer Risk: A Pooled Analysis of 12 Prospective Cohort Studies.
Article in The Journal of nutrition, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Soy Product Consumption and the Risk of Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.Nutrients · 2024Pooled it
- The association between Nutrient-Rich food score (NRFS) and the odds of lung cancer risk: a case-control study in Iran.BMC nutrition · 2026Article
- Calcium channels as pharmacological targets for cancer therapy.Clinical and experimental medicine · 2025Review
- Calcium deficiency and its implications for cardiovascular disease and cancer: Strategies for resolution via agronomic fortification.Food science & nutrition · 2024Review
- Mendelian randomization study of the relationship between blood and urine biomarkers and lung cancer.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Dairy product consumption and lung cancer risk: A prospective analysis.Clinical nutrition ESPEN · 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
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrevious studies on calcium intake and lung cancer risk reported inconsistent associations, possibly due to the differences in intake amounts and contributing sources of calcium and smoking prevalence.
objectivesWe investigated the associations of lung cancer risk with intake of calcium from foods and/or supplements and major calcium-rich foods in 12 studies.
methodsData from 12 prospective cohort studies conducted in the United States, Europe, and Asia were pooled and harmonized. We applied the DRI to categorize calcium intake based on the recommendations and quintile distribution to categorize calcium-rich food intake. We ran multivariable Cox regression by each cohort and pooled risk estimates to compute overall HR (95% CI).
resultsAmong 1,624,244 adult men and women, 21,513 incident lung cancer cases were ascertained during a mean follow-up of 9.9 y. Overall, the dietary calcium intake was not significantly associated with lung cancer risk; the HRs (95% CI) were 1.08 (0.98-1.18) for higher (>1.5 RDA) and 1.01 (0.95-1.07) for lower intake (<0.5 RDA) comparing with recommended intake (EAR to RDA). Milk and soy food intake were positively or inversely associated with lung cancer risk [HR (95% CI) = 1.07 (1.02-1.12) and 0.92 (0.84-1.00)], respectively. The positive association with milk intake was significant only in European and North American studies (P-interaction for region = 0.04). No significant association was observed for calcium supplements.
conclusionsIn this largest prospective investigation, overall, calcium intake was not associated with risk of lung cancer, but milk intake was associated with a higher risk. Our findings underscore the importance of considering food sources of calcium in studies of calcium intake.
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.