ArticleBMC nutrition2026
Processed meat intake and gastric adenocarcinoma risk among adults in Central-West Brazil: a case-control study.
Article in BMC nutrition, 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundProcessed meat is classified as a Group 1 carcinogen; however, evidence from Latin America-particularly Brazil-regarding its role in gastric adenocarcinoma (GA) remains limited. We examined the association between processed meat intake of GA among adults in Brazil's Central-West region.
methodsThis case-control study included 553 participants (166 cases, 189 endoscopic controls, and 198 hospital controls). Processed meat intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire. Associations were estimated using logistic regression models, calculating odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) for each 10 g/day increment in processed meat consumption. Adjusted predicted probabilities were estimated using post-estimation marginal effects to evaluate dose-response patterns across an intake range of 0-40 g/day.
resultsHigher processed meat intake was associated with an increased risk of GA in both comparisons, with an OR of 1.53 (95% CI: 1.09-2.15) using endoscopic controls and an OR of 1.28 (95% CI: 1.02-1.61) using hospital controls. Predictive margins showed an approximately linear dose-response pattern.
conclusionThese findings provide evidence from an understudied Brazilian region and suggest processed meat intake as a potentially modifiable risk factor for GA.
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.