Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40140825›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2025

Cancer incidence inconsistency between UK Biobank participants and the population: a prospective cohort study.

Chenxi Li, Gillian S Dite, Tuong L Nguyen, John L Hopper, Shuai Li

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

Chenxi LiCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia.
Gillian S DiteCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia.
Tuong L NguyenCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia.
John L HopperCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia.
Shuai LiCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, 207 Bouverie Street, Carlton, VIC, 3053, Australia. shuai.li@unimelb.edu.au.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council GNT2017373
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile the UK Biobank has been widely used for cancer research, its representativeness of the population in terms of cancer incidence has not been thoroughly investigated.

methodsWe conducted a prospective cohort study of 466,163 UK Biobank participants who were cancer-free at recruitment. Standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) were calculated for all cancers combined and for 25 cancers, by comparing incidences for the participants with the UK national incidences. Variations in SIR by age, sex and deprivation measures were investigated.

resultsOver a median follow-up period of 12 years, 47,535 participants had a cancer diagnosis. The SIR for all cancers combined was 0.90 (95% CI: 0.89, 0.91). The SIR increased with age and deprivation (P = 10

conclusionsThe overall cancer incidence was 10% lower for the UK Biobank participants compared with the population, with most cancers having a lower incidence that increased with deprivation. Irrespective of their causes, the inconsistencies could bias UK Biobank research results related to absolute cancer risks, such as the development and/or validation of cancer risk models and penetrance estimates for cancer susceptibility genes.

Indexed as

Biological Specimen BanksNeoplasmsAdultAgedCohort StudiesFemaleHumansIncidenceMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesUK BiobankUnited KingdomAbsolute riskCancer incidenceCohort studyHealthy volunteer biasStandardised incidence ratioUK Biobank

Identifiers

PMID40140825
PMCPMC11948887

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.