CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 203Nutritional Studies and DietAgriculture Sustainability and Environmental ImpactDietary Effects on Health

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Association of Healthful Plant-based Diet Adherence With Risk of Mortality and Major Chronic Diseases Among Adults in the UK

Open access
Thompson, Alysha S., Tresserra-Rimbau, Anna, Karavasiloglou, Nena, Jennings, Amy, Cantwell, Marie, Hill, Claire, Perez-Cornago, Aurora, Bondonno, Nicola P., Murphy, Neil, Rohrmann, Sabine, Cassidy, Aedín, Kühn, Tilman·2023·JAMA Network Open
DOI 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.4714PMC PMC10051114
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Importance: Plant-based diets have gained popularity for both environmental and health reasons, but a comprehensive assessment of their quality in relation to risk of mortality and major chronic diseases is lacking. Objective: To examine whether healthful vs unhealthful plant-based dietary patterns are associated with mortality and major chronic diseases among UK adults. Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective cohort study used data from adults in the UK Biobank, a large-scale population-based study. Participants were recruited between 2006 and 2010 and followed up using record linkage data until 2021; follow-up for different outcomes ranged between 10.6 and 12.2 years. Data analysis was conducted from November 2021 to October 2022. Exposures: Adherence to a healthful vs unhealthful plant-based diet index (hPDI vs uPDI) derived from 24-hour dietary assessments. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcomes were hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs of mortality (overall and cause specific), cardiovascular disease (CVD [total, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, and hemorrhagic stroke]), cancer (total, breast, prostate, and colorectal), and fracture (total, vertebrae, and hip) across quartiles of hPDI and uPDI adherence. Results: This study included 126 394 UK Biobank participants. They had a mean (SD) age of 56.1 (7.8) years; 70 618 (55.9%) were women. The majority of participants (115 371 [91.3%]) were White. Greater adherence to the hPDI was associated with lower risks of total mortality, cancer, and CVD, with HRs (95% CIs) of 0.84 (0.78-0.91), 0.93 (0.88-0.99), and 0.92 (0.86-0.99), respectively, for participants in the highest hPDI quartile compared with the lowest. The hPDI was also associated with lower risks of myocardial infarction and ischemic stroke, with HRs (95% CIs) of 0.86 (0.78-0.95) and 0.84 (0.71-0.99), respectively. By contrast, higher uPDI scores were associated with higher risks of mortality, CVD, and cancer. The associations observed did not show heterogeneity across strata of sex, smoking status, body mass index, or socioeconomic status or with polygenic risk scores (specifically with regard to CVD end points). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this cohort study of middle-aged UK adults suggest that a diet characterized by high-quality plant-based foods and lower intakes of animal products may be beneficial for health, irrespective of established chronic disease risk factors and genetic predisposition.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.4714

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1. Multivariable-Adjusted Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for All-Cause Mortality (n = 126 217), Cancer (n = 117 569), Cardiovascular Disease (CVD; n = 123 134), and Fracture (n = 112 208) Across Sex-Specific Healthful vs Unhealthful Plant-based Diet Index Quartiles All models used age as the underlying time variable and were adjusted for sex, body mass index, race and ethnicity, physical activity level, smoking status, alcohol intake, education level, energy intake, polypharmacy index, multimorbidity index, and aspirin use, stratified by region. For all-cause mortality analyses, models were further adjusted for prevalent CVD and prevalent cancer. For any cancer analyses, models were further adjusted for menopausal status and use of menopause hormone therapy. For any CVD analyses, models were further adjusted for polygenic risk score. For any fracture analyses, models were further adjusted for vitamin or mineral supplement use and polygenic risk score (osteoporosis). hPDI indicates healthful plant-based diet index; HR, hazard ratio; uPDI, unhealthful plant-based diet index.
Figure 1. Multivariable-Adjusted Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for All-Cause Mortality (n = 126 217), Cancer (n = 117 569), Cardiovascular Disease (CVD; n = 123 134), and Fracture (n = 112 208) Across Sex-Specific Healthful vs Unhealthful Plant-based Diet Index Quartiles All models used age as the underlying time variable and were adjusted for sex, body mass index, race and ethnicity, physical activity level, smoking status, alcohol intake, education level, energy intake, polypharmacy index, multimorbidity index, and aspirin use, stratified by region. For all-cause mortality analyses, models were further adjusted for prevalent CVD and prevalent cancer. For any cancer analyses, models were further adjusted for menopausal status and use of menopause hormone therapy. For any CVD analyses, models were further adjusted for polygenic risk score. For any fracture analyses, models were further adjusted for vitamin or mineral supplement use and polygenic risk score (osteoporosis). hPDI indicates healthful plant-based diet index; HR, hazard ratio; uPDI, unhealthful plant-based diet index.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2. Multivariable-Adjusted Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for Postmenopausal Breast Cancer, Colorectal Cancer, and Prostate Cancer Across Sex-Specific Healthful vs Unhealthful Plant-based Diet Index Quartiles (n = 117 569) All models used age as the underlying time variable and were adjusted for sex (excluding breast and prostate cancer), body mass index, race and ethnicity, physical activity level, smoking status, alcohol intake, education level, energy intake, polypharmacy index, multimorbidity index, and aspirin use, stratified by region. For breast cancer analyses, models were restricted to postmenopausal case patients with breast cancer and were further adjusted for use of menopause hormone therapy, use of oral contraception, polygenic risk score, age at menarche, and age at first live birth. For colorectal cancer analyses, models were further adjusted for menopausal status, polygenic risk score, and menopause hormone therapy. For prostate cancer analyses, models were further adjusted for polygenic risk score. hPDI indicates healthful plant-based diet index; HR, hazard ratio; uPDI, unhealthful plant-based diet index.
Figure 2. Multivariable-Adjusted Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for Postmenopausal Breast Cancer, Colorectal Cancer, and Prostate Cancer Across Sex-Specific Healthful vs Unhealthful Plant-based Diet Index Quartiles (n = 117 569) All models used age as the underlying time variable and were adjusted for sex (excluding breast and prostate cancer), body mass index, race and ethnicity, physical activity level, smoking status, alcohol intake, education level, energy intake, polypharmacy index, multimorbidity index, and aspirin use, stratified by region. For breast cancer analyses, models were restricted to postmenopausal case patients with breast cancer and were further adjusted for use of menopause hormone therapy, use of oral contraception, polygenic risk score, age at menarche, and age at first live birth. For colorectal cancer analyses, models were further adjusted for menopausal status, polygenic risk score, and menopause hormone therapy. For prostate cancer analyses, models were further adjusted for polygenic risk score. hPDI indicates healthful plant-based diet index; HR, hazard ratio; uPDI, unhealthful plant-based diet index.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3. Multivariable-Adjusted Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for Myocardial Infarction, Ischemic Stroke, and Hemorrhagic Stroke Across Sex-Specific Healthful vs Unhealthful Plant-based Diet Index Quartiles (n = 123 134) All models used age as the underlying time variable and were adjusted for sex, body mass index, race and ethnicity, physical activity level, smoking status, alcohol intake, education level, energy intake, polypharmacy index, multimorbidity index, and aspirin use, stratified by region. For myocardial infarction analyses, models were further adjusted for polygenic risk score (coronary artery disease). For ischemic stroke analyses, models were further adjusted for polygenic risk score (ischemic stroke). For hemorrhagic stroke analyses, models were further adjusted for polygenic risk score (cardiovascular disease). hPDI indicates healthful plant-based diet index; HR, hazard ratio; uPDI, unhealthful plant-based diet index.
Figure 3. Multivariable-Adjusted Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for Myocardial Infarction, Ischemic Stroke, and Hemorrhagic Stroke Across Sex-Specific Healthful vs Unhealthful Plant-based Diet Index Quartiles (n = 123 134) All models used age as the underlying time variable and were adjusted for sex, body mass index, race and ethnicity, physical activity level, smoking status, alcohol intake, education level, energy intake, polypharmacy index, multimorbidity index, and aspirin use, stratified by region. For myocardial infarction analyses, models were further adjusted for polygenic risk score (coronary artery disease). For ischemic stroke analyses, models were further adjusted for polygenic risk score (ischemic stroke). For hemorrhagic stroke analyses, models were further adjusted for polygenic risk score (cardiovascular disease). hPDI indicates healthful plant-based diet index; HR, hazard ratio; uPDI, unhealthful plant-based diet index.CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4. Multivariable-Adjusted Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Across Strata of Genetic CVD, Ischemic Stroke, or Coronary Artery Disease Risk, With Healthful Plant-based Diet Index (hPDI) Score Modeled as a Continuous Trend (10-Point Increments) Analyses used age as the underlying time variable and were adjusted for sex, body mass index, race and ethnicity, physical activity level, smoking status, alcohol intake, education level, energy intake, polypharmacy index, multimorbidity index, and aspirin use, stratified by region. Heterogeneity was tested by comparing 2 models: one model without an interaction term between the subgroup of interest and hPDI compared with another model with an interaction term between the subgroup of interest and hPDI. The likelihood ratio test was used to produce P interaction values. HR indicates hazard ratio; PRS, polygenic risk score.
Figure 4. Multivariable-Adjusted Hazard Ratios and 95% CIs for Cardiovascular Disease (CVD) Across Strata of Genetic CVD, Ischemic Stroke, or Coronary Artery Disease Risk, With Healthful Plant-based Diet Index (hPDI) Score Modeled as a Continuous Trend (10-Point Increments) Analyses used age as the underlying time variable and were adjusted for sex, body mass index, race and ethnicity, physical activity level, smoking status, alcohol intake, education level, energy intake, polypharmacy index, multimorbidity index, and aspirin use, stratified by region. Heterogeneity was tested by comparing 2 models: one model without an interaction term between the subgroup of interest and hPDI compared with another model with an interaction term between the subgroup of interest and hPDI. The likelihood ratio test was used to produce P interaction values. HR indicates hazard ratio; PRS, polygenic risk score.CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. World Health Organization, 2021, Plant-Based Diets and Their Impact on Health, Sustainability and the Environment: A Review of the Evidence
  2. Thompson? DJ, Wells? D, Selzam? S, . UK Biobank release and systematic evaluation of optimised polygenic risk scores for 53 diseases and quantitative traits.? medRxiv. Preprint posted online August 1, 2022. doi:10.1101/2022.06.16.22276246? · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 101–175 of 175

Metadata

Authors
Thompson, A. S., Tresserra-Rimbau, A., Karavasiloglou, N., Jennings, A., Cantwell, M., Hill, C., Perez-Cornago, A., Bondonno, N. P., Murphy, N., Rohrmann, S., Cassidy, A., & Kühn, T.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University Belfast (GB)
  • Institute for Global Food Security, School of Biological Sciences, Queen’s University, Belfast, United Kingdom
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
  • Edith Cowan University (AU)
  • Centre international de recherche sur le cancer (FR)
Corresponding author
Cassidy, Aedín
ORCID
Venue
JAMA Network Open
Publisher
American Medical Association (AMA)
Published
2023-03-28
Volume
6
Issue
3
Pages
e234714
ISSN
2574-3805 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.4714
PMC
PMC10051114
OpenAlex
W4361224334
Cited by
203
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 45 · 2025: 73 · 2024: 60 · 2023: 25
FWCI
51.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • JAMA Network Open (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Australasian Journal of Paramedicine (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • World Health Organization
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Scottish Government
  • Department for the Economy
  • Cancer Research UK (29017)
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Northwest Regional Development Agency
  • Medical Research Council
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 › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Dietary Effects on Health
Keywords
plant-based diet, healthful plant-based diet index, unhealthful plant-based diet index, dietary habits, mortality, cardiovascular disease, cancer, fracture, myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, hemorrhagic stroke, breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, UK Biobank, dietary adherence, UK adults, fracture risk
MeSH terms
Animals, United Kingdom, Myocardial Infarction, Neoplasms, Plants, Prospective Studies, Diet, Vegetarian, 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.

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