ArticleBMC public health2026
Assessing the role of ultra-processed foods in colorectal cancer incidence: insights from the EPIC cohort.
Article in BMC public health, 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
34 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStudies have reported associations between ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption and colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence, yet the magnitude of these associations remains unclear. This study estimated the cohort-associated fraction (CAF), adapted from the population-attributable fraction metric, between UPF consumption and CRC incidence and explored the potential benefits of substituting UPFs with unprocessed or minimally processed foods.
methodsUsing data from 416,081 middle-aged adults in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC) cohort, including 5,845 incident CRC cases, Cox proportional hazards models were applied to estimate associations between UPF consumption (grams/day) and CRC, colon and rectal cancer risks. Substitution analyses were also carried out to estimate associations of replacing UPFs with unprocessed or minimally processed foods, to reflect potentially more interpretable estimates. CAFs quantified the magnitude of these associations.
resultsUPF consumption was positively associated with colon cancer (HR1-SD Increment: 1.04 [95%CI: 1.01; 1.08]) and CRC (HR1-SD Increment: 1.04 [95%CI: 1.01; 1.07]) but not with rectal cancer incidence. The CAF for UPF consumption was 5.58% (95%CI: 0.55; 10.50) for colon, and 5.10% (1.10; 9.02) for CRC incidence. Substituting 1-SD of UPFs with unprocessed or minimally processed foods was inversely associated with colon cancer (HR: 0.93, [95%CI: 0.89; 0.97]) and CRC incidence (HR: 0.94, [95%CI: 0.92; 0.98]), in energy- and nutrient-adjusted models. In substitution models, the CAF increased to 9.67% (4.36; 14.85) for colon cancer and 7.30% (3.05; 11.48) for CRC incidence.
conclusionWe estimated the magnitude of associations between UPF consumption and CRC incidence, highlighting the potential public health relevance of reducing UPF intake. Given the rising consumption of UPFs and burden of CRC incidence, public health interventions and continued research are needed to address this growing issue.
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.