ArticleBMC cancer2025
Dietary non-enzymatic antioxidant capacity and risk of breast cancer: the Swedish National March Cohort.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Dietary total antioxidant capacity and risk of breast cancer: a systematic review and dose-response meta-analysis of observational studies.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTotal dietary antioxidant capacity has been associated with a lower risk of breast cancer, but the supporting evidence is limited. We investigated the association between dietary Non-Enzymatic Antioxidant Capacity (NEAC), measuring the total antioxidant potential of the diet, and the risk of breast cancer.
methodsWe followed 24,950 women recruited into the Swedish National March Cohort through record linkages to Swedish health registries from 1997 until 2016. Total NEAC was computed based on the baseline 96-item food frequency questionnaire. Three measures of dietary NEAC were assessed: total NEAC, NEAC from fruits and vegetables and NEAC from grains. We fitted multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression models to compute hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) to quantify the association between dietary NEAC and risk of overall, as well as pre- and post-menopausal breast cancer.
resultsDuring a median follow-up of 19.2 years, 1142/24,950 women were diagnosed with breast cancer (136/10,826 pre- and 975/21,152 post-menopausal). Findings indicated a trend in the association between total NEAC and the hazard of overall breast cancer (highest vs. lowest quartile: adjusted HR = 0.85, 95% CI 0.69-1.04; p-value for Wald test = 0.138, p-value for trend = 0.048). The association was more evident for post-menopausal breast cancer (HR = 0.76, 95% CI 0.60-0.96; p-value for trend = 0.010). However, when missing data were imputed, the magnitude of the association was found to be weaker in terms of hazard reduction and no statistically significant associations were observed but the direction of the associations remained consistent (overall: HR = 0.89 (0.74-1.08), p-value for trend = 0.091; post-menopausal: HR = 0.84 (0.69-1.03), p-value for trend = 0.057). When distinguishing NEAC based on food sources, breast cancer hazard was inversely associated with NEAC from fruits and vegetables (HR = 0.79, 95% CI 0.64-0.97; p-value for trend = 0.019), but not with NEAC from grains (HR = 1.05, 95% CI 0.86-1.29; p-value for trend = 0.630).
conclusionThese results suggest an inverse association between dietary total antioxidant capacity and the risk of breast cancer, particularly in post-menopausal women, which seems to be driven by the consumption of fruits and vegetables. However, sensitivity analysis on imputed covariates did not fully confirm our findings, indicating the need for future confirmatory research.
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.