Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38201975›Full record

ArticleNutrients2023

Comparing the Associations of Dietary Patterns Identified through Principal Component Analysis and Cluster Analysis with Colorectal Cancer Risk: A Large Case-Control Study in China.

Ting Ma, Kexin Tu, Qingjian Ou, Yujing Fang, Caixia Zhang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nutrients, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Effect of Maternal Vitamin BCurrent nutrition reports · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. The interactions of copper, glutamate, and cuproptosis: insights into brain health and Alzheimer's disease pathology.Biometals : an international journal on the role of metal ions in biology, biochemistry, and medicine · 2026
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Ting MaDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.
Kexin TuDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.
Qingjian OuState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Yujing FangState Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China, Guangdong Provincial Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou 510060, China.
Caixia ZhangDepartment of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou 510080, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9671-9412

Funding

the Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation 2021A1515011751the National Natural Science Foundation of China 81973020
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Examining the association between dietary patterns and colorectal cancer (CRC) risk can provide valuable insights beyond the assessment of individual foods or nutrients. However, there is a lack of in-depth analysis of dietary patterns and CRC risk in Chinese populations, and few studies have compared dietary patterns derived from different posteriori methods with the aim of predicting disease risk. The aim of this study was to derive dietary patterns using both principal component analysis (PCA) and cluster analysis (CA) and to assess their respective associations with CRC risk. A large-scale case-control study was conducted in Guangdong Province, China, including 2799 incident colorectal cancer cases and an equal number of frequency-matched controls. Dietary intake information was gathered through the use of a validated food frequency questionnaire. PCA and CA were used to derive dietary patterns. A multivariable logistic regression model was used to calculate the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). Four major dietary patterns were identified by PCA. CA identified two dietary patterns, referred to as the "Balanced dietary pattern" and the "Refined grain dietary pattern". Notably, there were significant inverse associations between the milk-egg-nut-soy dietary pattern (aOR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.42, 0.62), the vegetable-fruit dietary pattern (aOR, 0.61; 95%CI, 0.51, 0.74), and the poultry-fish dietary pattern (aOR, 0.81; 95%CI, 0.68, 0.97) and CRC risk. However, the red meat-preserved food dietary pattern was associated with an increased risk of CRC (aOR, 2.99; 95%CI, 2.43, 3.67). When compared with the Refined grain dietary pattern, the Balanced dietary pattern showed a decreased risk of CRC (aOR, 0.59; 95%CI, 0.52, 0.66). The results from the comparison of the two methods indicate that both CA and PCA derived remarkably similar patterns. The combined use of PCA and CA identified consistent underlying patterns, showing comparable associations with CRC risk. These findings suggest that individuals who prefer dietary patterns characterized by a high intake of red meat, preserved food, and refined grains should be cautious about their increased CRC risk. Conversely, dietary patterns rich in fruits, vegetables, and high-quality protein sources are advisable for the prevention of CRC in the Chinese population.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsAnimalsCase-Control StudiesChinaCluster AnalysisEdible GrainPrincipal Component Analysiscluster analysiscolorectal cancerdietary patternprincipal component analysis

Identifiers

PMID38201975
PMCPMC10780506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.