ArticleCommunications medicine2026
A study of the associations between social isolation and loneliness with sex-specific cancer risk in the UK Biobank.
Article in Communications medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSocial isolation, an objective lack of social connections, and loneliness, the subjective distress from perceived social deficits, are established risk factors for poor cancer prognosis. However, their associations with cancer incidence remain unclear. We investigated these associations using UK Biobank data.
methodsWe analyzed data from 354,537 UK Biobank participants aged 38-73. Participants linked to national health registries, without cancer within one year post-baseline, and with complete exposure and covariate data were included. The primary outcome was cancer incidence. Covariates were classified into demographic, physiological, socioeconomic, lifestyle, and health-related indicators. Cox proportional hazards models were used, with subgroup interaction analysis and mediation analyses performed.
resultsHere we show that 20,767(5.8%) of participants are isolated and 15,942(4.5%) of participants are lonely. During a median 11.60 years (IQR8.40-12.72) of follow-up, 38,103 participants are diagnosed with cancer. After adjusting for covariates, social isolation is associated with an 8% higher cancer risk(CSHR1.087 95% CI 1.043-1.133; sHR1.073 95% CI 1.029-1.120), while loneliness is not. Social isolation shows a strong interaction by sex (P-interaction<0.01), with isolated females at higher risk than males. Social isolation increases the risk of breast, lung, uterine, ovarian, bladder, and stomach cancers in females, and bladder cancer in males. Socioeconomic factors, health behaviours, and inflammation status largely explain these associations.
conclusionsSocial isolation is a risk factor for cancer with significant sex and organ-specific effects. Addressing socioeconomic challenges, unhealthy lifestyles, and poor mental well-being through health policies could help reduce cancer risk in isolated populations.
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.