The DOI matches its Crossref record; 50 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 25 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality
Open accessAbstract
Importance: Although emphasis has recently been placed on the importance of high-protein diets to overall health, a comprehensive analysis of long-term cause-specific mortality in association with the intake of plant protein and animal protein has not been reported. Objective: To examine the associations between overall mortality and cause-specific mortality and plant protein intake. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study analyzed data from 416 104 men and women in the US National Institutes of Health-AARP Diet and Health Study from 1995 to 2011. Data were analyzed from October 2018 through April 2020. Exposures: Validated baseline food frequency questionnaire dietary information, including intake of plant protein and animal protein. Main Outcomes and Measures: Hazard ratios and 16-year absolute risk differences for overall mortality and cause-specific mortality. Results: The final analytic cohort included 237 036 men (57%) and 179 068 women. Their overall median (SD) ages were 62.2 (5.4) years for men and 62.0 (5.4) years for women. Based on 6 009 748 person-years of observation, 77 614 deaths (18.7%; 49 297 men and 28 317 women) were analyzed. Adjusting for several important clinical and other risk factors, greater dietary plant protein intake was associated with reduced overall mortality in both sexes (hazard ratio per 1 SD was 0.95 [95% CI, 0.94-0.97] for men and 0.95 [95% CI, 0.93-0.96] for women; adjusted absolute risk difference per 1 SD was -0.36% [95% CI, -0.48% to -0.25%] for men and -0.33% [95% CI, -0.48% to -0.21%] for women; hazard ratio per 10 g/1000 kcal was 0.88 [95% CI, 0.84-0.91] for men and 0.86 [95% CI, 0.82-0.90] for women; adjusted absolute risk difference per 10 g/1000 kcal was -0.95% [95% CI, -1.3% to -0.68%] for men and -0.86% [95% CI, -1.3% to -0.55%] for women; all P < .001). The association between plant protein intake and overall mortality was similar across the subgroups of smoking status, diabetes, fruit consumption, vitamin supplement use, and self-reported health status. Replacement of 3% energy from animal protein with plant protein was inversely associated with overall mortality (risk decreased 10% in both men and women) and cardiovascular disease mortality (11% lower risk in men and 12% lower risk in women). In particular, the lower overall mortality was attributable primarily to substitution of plant protein for egg protein (24% lower risk in men and 21% lower risk in women) and red meat protein (13% lower risk in men and 15% lower risk in women). Conclusions and Relevance: In this large prospective cohort, higher plant protein intake was associated with small reductions in risk of overall and cardiovascular disease mortality. Our findings provide evidence that dietary modification in choice of protein sources may influence health and longevity.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
31 Own result · 18 Not checked yet · 11 Own method · 7 Own interpretation · 2 No basis given · 1 Partly supported · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“greater dietary plant protein intake was associated with reduced overall mortality in both sexes (hazard ratio per 1 SD was 0.95 [95% CI, 0.94-0.97]for men and 0.95 [95% CI, 0.93-0.96]for women”
- Also stated in: § Dietary Plant Protein Intake and Overall Mortality · plain
“In men, the HRs were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.94-0.97)per 1 SD and 0.88 (95% CI, 0.84-0.91)per 10 g/1000 kcal increment”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Abstract
plaincorrelationaln = 297- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Dietary Plant Protein Intake and Overall Mortality · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, animal protein intake was not associated with multivariable-adjusted mortality in men (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.98-1.00;P = .18)or women (HR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.97-1.00;P = .02)”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Dietary Plant Protein Intake and Overall Mortality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and cardiovascular disease mortality (11% lower risk in men and 12% lower risk in women)”
- Also stated in: § Substitution of 3% Energy From Plant Protein for Specific Animal Protein Sources · plain
“and CVD mortality (men: HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.94;women: HR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.82-0.94;P < .001)”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Substitution of 3% Energy From Plant Protein for Specific Animal Protein Sources · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“greater dietary plant protein intake was associated with reduced overall mortality in both sexes (hazard ratio per 1 SD was 0.95 [95% CI, 0.94-0.97]for men and 0.95 [95% CI, 0.93-0.96]for women”
- Also stated in: § Dietary Plant Protein Intake and Overall Mortality · plain
“Corresponding adjusted HRs in women were 0.95 (95% CI, 0.93-0.96)per 1 SD and 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.90)per 10 g/1000 kcal increment”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Abstract
plaincorrelationaln = 317- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Dietary Plant Protein Intake and Overall Mortality · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Replacement of 3% energy from animal protein with plant protein was inversely associated with overall mortality (risk decreased 10% in both men and women)”
- Also stated in: § Substitution of 3% Energy From Plant Protein for Specific Animal Protein Sources · plain
“Table 4 presents mortality data for substitution of 3% energy from plant protein for the equivalent amount of animal protein of various sources and shows a significant association with lower overall mortality (men: HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.88-0.93;women: HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93;all P < .001)”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Substitution of 3% Energy From Plant Protein for Specific Animal Protein Sources · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multivariable c | -0.13 (-0.22 to -0.050) | 0.95 (0.93 to 0.98) | <.001 d | -0.35 (-0.59 to -0.14) | 0.88 (0.81 to 0.95) | <.001 d”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Multivariable c | -0.36 (-0.48 to -0.25) | 0.95 (0.94 to 0.97) | <.001 d | -0.95 (-1.3 to -0.68) | 0.88 (0.84 to 0.91) | <.001 d”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“prominent inverse associations observed for replacement of egg protein and red meat protein with plant protein”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Conclusions
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Overall | 0.76 (0.72-0.80) | <.001 c | 0.79 (0.73-0.85) | <.001 c”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this large cohort investigation showed small but significant associations between higher intake of plant protein and lower overall and CVD mortality”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 25
- The quote only partly states this claim. 3
- Not yet classified. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 10
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“approximately 40% of daily dietary protein was from plant sources and 60% was animal protein (including 19% dairy protein), which are similar to the plant and animal protein intakes of the US population.”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Strengths and Limitations
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites [46] Pasiakos, 2015, Sources and amounts of animal, dairy, and plant protein intake of US adults in 2007-2010., Nutrients sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Results (page not provided) report that US adults obtained 46% of dietary protein from animal sources, 16% from dairy, and 30% from plants; another 8% was unclassified. Animal and dairy protein together account for 62%, close to the citing sentence’s approximately 60%, but the reported plant share is 30%, not approximately 40%, and the dairy share is 16%, not 19%. The cited paper does not establish that all three stated shares are similar to those of the US population. (LLM, conf=0.88)
- Could not verifycites [47] Yancy, 2014, Trends in energy and macronutrient intakes by weight status over four decades., Public Health Nutr sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Discussion says that the types of foods underlying changes in the American diet were not a focus of the study. The results report the percentage of total energy from protein, but neither those results nor passages retrieved for plant, animal, and dairy protein give the US protein-source distribution needed to assess the claimed similarity. (LLM, conf=0.77)
- Not checked yetcites [48] Ford, 2013, Trends in energy intake among adults in the United States: findings from NHANES., Am J Clin Nutr source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Partly supported
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and 7% to 12% per 1 SD and 17% to 29% per 10 g/1000 kcal in women (all P < .003).”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Dietary Plant Protein Intake and Cause-Specific Mortality
Not yet classified.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Plant protein intake was inversely associated with mortality from all CVD, stroke, and”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Dietary Plant Protein Intake and Cause-Specific Mortality
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, plant protein intake was not significantly associated with mortality from cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, infections or injuries/accidents in either men or women (all P > .003)”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Dietary Plant Protein Intake and Cause-Specific Mortality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the lower overall mortality was attributable primarily to substitution of plant protein for egg protein (24% lower risk in men and 21% lower risk in women)”
- Also stated in: § Substitution of 3% Energy From Plant Protein for Specific Animal Protein Sources · hedged
“with 15% to 39% lower risk in men and 17% to 34% lower risk in women for overall (24% lower risk in men and 21% lower risk in women)”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Substitution of 3% Energy From Plant Protein for Specific Animal Protein Sources · hedged
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similarly, we found 12% to 30% lower mortality in men, and 13% to 28% lower mortality in women, when substituting for red meat pro- tein (again, except for deaths from infection in men and women, and from injuries and accidents in women)”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Substitution of 3% Energy From Specific Dietary Plant Protein Sources for Egg Protein and Red Meat Protein Intake
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Substitution of 3% energy from plant protein for red meat protein intake showed stronger mortality reductions of 11% to 21% in men and 11% to 25% in women for overall (13% lower risk in men and 15% lower risk in women), CVD, heart disease, and stroke mortality in both sexes, and cancer and respiratory disease mortality in women.”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Substitution of 3% Energy From Plant Protein for Specific Animal Protein Sources
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and red meat protein (13% lower risk in men and 15% lower risk in women)”
- Also stated in: § Substitution of 3% Energy From Plant Protein for Specific Animal Protein Sources · plain
“Substitution of 3% energy from plant protein for red meat protein intake showed stronger mortality reductions of 11% to 21% in men and 11% to 25% in women for overall (13% lower risk in men and 15% lower risk in women)”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Substitution of 3% Energy From Plant Protein for Specific Animal Protein Sources · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the mortality reduction appeared strongest with substitution for egg protein, with 15% to 39% lower risk in men and 17% to 34% lower risk in women for overall (24% lower risk in men and 21% lower risk in women), cancer, CVD, heart disease, and respiratory disease mortality”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Substitution of 3% Energy From Plant Protein for Specific Animal Protein Sources
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“for overall mortality, propensity score-adjusted HRs were 0.95 [95% CI, 0.94-0.97]per 1 SD for men and 0.92 [95% CI, 0.90-0.93]per 1 SD for women; both P < .001”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Dietary Plant Protein Intake and Overall Mortality
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“By contrast, significant differences were observed in subgroups of BMI and years of follow-up (in both sexes), alcohol consumption (men), and age and vegetable consumption (women) (Figure ).”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Dietary Plant Protein Intake and Overall Mortality in Cohort Subgroups
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our findings of more pronounced inverse plant protein associations in women who were younger than 60 years, and in both men and women with a favorable BMI”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A similar change from dairy protein to plant protein was associated with lower overall and CVD mortality in men and women, and heart disease and stroke mortality in men, with overall mortality HRs of 0.92 in both men and women (P < .001).”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Substitution of 3% Energy From Plant Protein for Specific Animal Protein Sources
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We observed stronger inverse associations for those with BMI of 18.5 to 25 (men: HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.91-0.96;women: HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.89-0.95),follow-up time of less than 5 years (men: HR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.90-0.95;women: HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93),consumption of 3 drinks or more daily (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.85-0.93)for men, and for women who were younger than 60 years of age (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Dietary Plant Protein Intake and Overall Mortality in Cohort Subgroups
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we observed lower overall and cause-specific mortality (with the exception of deaths from infection, injuries, and accidents) when exchanging bread, cereal, and pasta plant protein for egg protein, with risk reductions of 18% to 45% in men and 20% to 39% in women”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Substitution of 3% Energy From Specific Dietary Plant Protein Sources for Egg Protein and Red Meat Protein Intake
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The Iowa Women's Health Study showed that plant protein substitution for animal protein is associated with reduced coronary heart disease mortality but not with overall or cancer mortality.11”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [11] Kelemen, 2005, Associations of dietary protein with disease and mortality in a prospective study of postmenopausal women., Am J Epidemiol source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“To elucidate residual confounding status, propensity scores reflecting the association between plant protein intake and potential confounding covariables were generated and included in the models.19”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Statistical Analysis
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19] D’Agostino, 1998, Propensity score methods for bias reduction in the comparison of a treatment to a non-randomized control group., Stat Med source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Previous studies, including metaanalyses of short-term clinical trials, have shown that highprotein diets lead to weight loss and fat mass loss, possibly from the negative energy balance that results from sustained satiety and energy expenditure.[2][3][4][5]”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2][3][4][5]
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To test for proportional hazards, we included an interaction of intervals of follow-up time as categories with plant protein intake in the regression model, and P values for the significance of the interaction were determined from likelihood ratio tests.”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Statistical Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Collectively, the present and previous studies indicate the importance and diverse effects of primary dietary protein sources, including beneficial associations for higher plant protein intake in longterm health outcomes.”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Discussion
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Bonferroni correction threshold was used to account for multiple comparisons and define statistical significance (.05/ 18 = .0028for primary and secondary analyses [9 tests each for men and for women], and .05/21= .0024for the subgroup interaction tests).”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Statistical Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Adjusted for age at entry (continuous), body mass index (<18.5,18.5 to <25, 25 to <30, 30 to <35, and Ն35), alcohol consumption (none to Յ1, >1 to 3, and >3 drinks per day), smoking status”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Dietary Plant Protein Intake and Overall Mortality
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To minimize the influence of potential bias from reverse causality, we also performed sensitivity analyses that excluded the first 5 years of follow-up.”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Statistical Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In addition, cardiovascular metrics, including blood pressure, circulating lipid and lipoprotein profiles, and glycemic modulation, have shown improvement with protein substitution for carbohydrate.[4][5][6][7][8]”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4][5][6][7][8]
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our analysis was based on a single dietary assessment at baseline, with possible unknown dietary changes during the follow-up period.”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Strengths and Limitations
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Validity and reliability of the DHQ has been confirmed and reported.15”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Exposure Assessment
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Thompson, 2008, Performance of a food-frequency questionnaire in the US NIH-AARP (National Institutes of Health-American Association of Retired Persons) Diet and Health Study., Public Health Nutr source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“a metaanalysis of 17 prospective cohorts that included 150 328 deaths found greater consumption of total red meat and processed meat was associated with excess risk of overall, CVD, and cancer mortality”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [38] Wang, 2016, Red and processed meat consumption and mortality: dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies., Public Health Nutr source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In this large prospective cohort, higher plant protein intake was associated with small reductions in risk of overall and cardiovascular disease mortality.”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Dietary plant protein has been associated with reduced CVD risk factors, including lower systolic and diastolic blood pressure, improved lipid and lipoprotein profiles, and decreased circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-1.[20][21][22]”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20][21][22]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we cannot preclude the possibility of residual confounding, including from unmeasured factors, which may have biased the observed associations.”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Strengths and Limitations
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We did, however, control for a wide range of known potential confounding factors and used a propensity score to adjust for variation between comparison groups, and our main findings remained essentially unchanged.”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Strengths and Limitations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Missing values for any single covariable were less than 5%; we included a missing value indicator for each covariable in the models.”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Statistical Analysis
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The vast majority of our study participants were non-Hispanic white, which reduces the generalizability of the findings to other racial/ethnic populations.”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Strengths and Limitations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“increased whole grain consumption has been favorably associated with reduced cardiovascular disease risk factors, including hypertension, total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol.”
§ Association Between Plant and Animal Protein Intake and Overall and Cause-Specific Mortality > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [40] Flint, 2009, Whole grains and incident hypertension in men., Am J Clin Nutr source
- Not checked yetcites [41] McKeown, 2002, Whole-grain intake is favorably associated with metabolic risk factors for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in the Framingham Offspring Study., Am J Clin Nutr source
- Not checked yetcites [42] Hollænder, 2015, Whole-grain and blood lipid changes in apparently healthy adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies., Am J Clin Nutr source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
A comprehensive analysis of long-term cause-specific mortality in relation to plant and animal protein intake had not been reported.
“a comprehensive analysis of long-term cause-specific mortality in association with the intake of plant protein and animal protein has not been reported.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Recommendations about food sources of protein have not yet been made.
“recommendations regarding food sources of protein have yet to be made.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Additional evidence is needed on the association between plant and animal protein intake and mortality in a large cohort examining specific sources and subgroups.
“Additional evidence is needed regarding the association between the intake of plant protein and animal protein and mortality in a large cohort that examines specific plant and animal protein sources in detail as well as in population subgroups based on risk factors.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The findings are unlikely to be materially altered by additional events from the next linkage.
“because our findings are unlikely to be materially altered by the additional events, the present analysis was conducted with the currently available follow-up.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The measurement error from the food frequency questionnaire is nondifferential.
“inherent measurement error (eg, underreporting of dietary intakes 49 ) that would underestimate associations as a result of nondifferential misclassification and bias risk estimates toward the null.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Intake of plant protein was significantly inversely associated with all-cause mortality as well as cause-specific mortality from cardiovascular disease and stroke in both males and females. They reported that replacement of just 3% of protein intake with plant protein versus animal was associated with a 10% reduction in overall mortality across both men and women [91].”
From Plant Proteins: Assessing Their Nutritional Quality and Effects on Health and Physical Function (2020) · cites this paper as [91]
Citations
Cites
Gut flora metabolism of phosphatidylcholine promotes cardiovascular disease
Wang, Z., Klipfell, E., Bennett, B. J., Koeth, R., Levison, B. S., DuGar, B., Feldstein, A. E., Britt, E. B., Fu, X., Chung, Y.-M., et al. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09922 · Cited by 5,597
Adjustment for total energy intake in epidemiologic studies
Willett, W. C., Howe, G., & Kushi, L. H. (1997) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/65.4.1220s · Cited by 3,805
Intestinal microbial metabolism of phosphatidylcholine and cardiovascular risk
Tang, W. H. W., Wang, Z., Levison, B. S., Koeth, R. A., Britt, E. B., Fu, X., Wu, Y., & Hazen, S. L. (2013) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa1109400 · Cited by 3,400
Projected effect of dietary salt reductions on future cardiovascular disease
Bibbins-Domingo, K., Chertow, G. M., Coxson, P. G., Moran, A., Lightwood, J. M., Pletcher, M. J., & Goldman, L. (2010) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmoa0907355 · Cited by 1,253
Aune, D., Keum, N., Giovannucci, E., Fadnes, L. T., Boffetta, P., Greenwood, D. C., Tonstad, S., Vatten, L. J., Riboli, E., & Norat, T. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i2716 · Cited by 1,013
Health effects of vegetables and fruit: assessing mechanisms of action in human experimental studies
Lampe, J. W. (1999) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/70.3.475s · Cited by 786
Red Meat Consumption and Mortality: Results From 2 Prospective Cohort Studies
Sun, Q. (2012) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2011.2287 · Cited by 763
Dietary protein intake and human health
Wu, G. (2016) · Food & Function · doi:10.1039/c5fo01530h · Cited by 748
Association of animal and plant protein intake with all-cause and cause-specific mortality.
Song, M., Fung, T. T., Hu, F. B., Willett, W. C., Longo, V. D., Chan, A. T., & Giovannucci, E. L. (2016) · JAMA Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.4182 · Cited by 735
Design and Serendipity in Establishing a Large Cohort with Wide Dietary Intake Distributions
Schatzkin, A. G., Subar, A. F., Thompson, F. E., Harlan, L. C., Tangrea, J. A., Hollenbeck, A. R., Hurwitz, P. E., Coyle, L. M., Schussler, N., Michaud, D. S., et al. (2001) · American Journal of Epidemiology · doi:10.1093/aje/154.12.1119 · Cited by 608
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Plant Proteins: Assessing Their Nutritional Quality and Effects on Health and Physical Function
Hertzler, S. R., Lieblein-Boff, J. C., Weiler, M., & Allgeier, C. (2020) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu12123704 · Cited by 594
Obesity and Cardiometabolic Risk Factors: From Childhood to Adulthood
Drożdż, D., Pitti, J. Á., Wójcik, M., Borghi, C., Gabbianelli, R., Mazur, A., Herceg-Čavrak, V., López‐Valcárcel, B. G., Brzeziński, M., Lurbe, E., et al. (2021) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu13114176 · Cited by 441
Sustaining Protein Nutrition Through Plant-Based Foods
Langyan, S., Yadava, P., Khan, F. N., Dar, Z. A., Singh, R., & Kumar, A. (2022) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2021.772573 · Cited by 412
The adverse metabolic effects of branched-chain amino acids are mediated by isoleucine and valine
Yu, D., Richardson, N. E., Green, C. L., Spicer, A. B., Trautman, M. E., Flores, V., Jang, C., Kasza, I., Nikodémová, M., Wakai, M. H., et al. (2021) · Cell Metabolism · doi:10.1016/j.cmet.2021.03.025 · Cited by 398
The Safe and Effective Use of Plant-Based Diets with Guidelines for Health Professionals
Craig, W. J., Mangels, A. R., Fresán, U., Marsh, K. A., Miles, F. L., Saunders, A. V., Haddad, E. H., Heskey, C. E., JOHNSTON, P. K., Larson‐Meyer, E., et al. (2021) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu13114144 · Cited by 379
Metadata
- Authors
- Huang, J., Liao, L. M., Weinstein, S. J., Sinha, R., Graubard, B. I., & Albanes, D.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Corresponding author
- Huang, Jiaqi
- Albanes, Demetrius
- ORCID
- Venue
- JAMA Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2020-09-01
- Volume
- 180
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1173
- ISSN
- 2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7358979
- OpenAlex
- W3040808545
- Cited by
- 243
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 35 · 2024: 48 · 2023: 48 · 2022: 45 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 10
- FWCI
- 24.56
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of State
- Pennsylvania Department of Health
- California Department of Public Health
- Florida Department of Health
- Arizona Department of Health Services
- Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey
- Louisiana State University
- Texas Department of State Health Services
- National Institutes of Health
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Ecology › Agriculture Sustainability and Environmental Impact
- Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
- Keywords
- plant protein intake, animal protein intake, dietary protein, all-cause mortality, cause-specific mortality, cardiovascular mortality, cancer mortality, diabetes mortality, AARP Diet and Health Study, dietary risk factors, sex differences, mortality risk reduction, protein intake recommendations
- MeSH terms
- Animal Proteins, Dietary, Aged, Cardiovascular Diseases, Cause of Death, Diet, Diet Surveys, Female, Humans, Life Style, Male, Middle Aged, United States, Plant Proteins, Dietary, Cohort Studies
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
