ArticleNutrients2025
Oxidative Balance Score Calculated Using Different Methods and Its Associations with Colorectal Cancer Risk.
Article in Nutrients, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Fruit Juice Processing Technologies and Their Impact on the Content of Bioactive Compounds-A Review of Current Approaches.Food science & nutrition · 2026Review
- Epigenetic Bridge Between Oxidative Balance of Koreans and TCGA Pan-Cancer Risk: Sex-Specific DNA Methylation Signatures.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The relationship between Oxidation Balance Score and all-cause mortality in patients with hypertension: An observational study.Medicine · 2025Observational
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
backgroundThe oxidative balance score (OBS) measures oxidative stress from diet and lifestyle, but research linking it to colorectal cancer (CRC) risk is scarce and varies in calculation methods.
methodsWe conducted a case-control study in Guangzhou, China, involving 2799 CRC cases and an equal number of sex- and age-matched controls. We adopted and compared four different methods for calculating the OBSs. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95%CI) for the relationship between OBS and CRC risk were determined using an unconditional logistic regression model. Restricted cubic splines were used to explore potential non-linear relationships. Additionally, stratified analyses were performed by sex, and subgroup analyses were performed based on the tumor site.
resultsAmong the four OBSs assessed, OBS-1 demonstrated superior performance. Higher adherence to four OBSs was associated with a lower risk of CRC. The adjusted ORs (95%CIs) for the highest quartile compared to the lowest quartile were as follows: 0.42 (0.35, 0.50) for OBS-1, 0.43 (0.36, 0.51) for OBS-2, 0.50 (0.42, 0.59) for OBS-3, and 0.43 (0.36, 0.51) for OBS-4. Linear relationships were observed between four OBSs and CRC risk (all
conclusionsAll four OBSs were negatively associated with CRC risk, with OBS-1 showing the strongest association in our analysis.
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.