The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Dietary fat and breast cancer risk revisited: a meta-analysis of the published literature
Open accessAbstract
Animal experiments and human ecological studies suggest that dietary fat intake is associated with a risk of breast cancer, but individual-based studies have given contradictory results. We have carried out a meta-analysis of this association to include all papers published up to July 2003. Case-control and cohort studies that examined the association of dietary fat, or fat-containing foods, with risk of breast cancer were identified. A total of 45 risk estimates for total fat intake were obtained. Descriptive data from each study were extracted with an estimate of relative risk and its associated 95% confidence interval (CI), and were analysed using the random effects model of DerSimonian and Laird. The summary relative risk, comparing the highest and lowest levels of intake of total fat, was 1.13 (95% CI: 1.03-1.25). Cohort studies (N=14) had a summary relative risk of 1.11 (95% CI: 0.99-1.25) and case-control studies (N=31) had a relative risk of 1.14 (95% CI 0.99-1.32). Significant summary relative risks were also found for saturated fat (RR, 1.19; 95% CI: 1.06-1.35) and meat intake (RR, 1.17; 95% CI 1.06-1.29). Combined estimates of risk for total and saturated fat intake, and for meat intake, all indicate an association between higher intakes and an increased risk of breast cancer. Case-control and cohort studies gave similar results.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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
Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions
Fleiss, J. L., Levin, B., & Paik, M. C. (2003) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471445428 · Cited by 18,646
Dietary fat and the risk of breast cancer.
Willett, W. C., Stampfer, M. J., Colditz, G. A., Rosner, B. A., Hennekens, C. H., & Speizer, F. E. (1987) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198701013160105 · Cited by 534
Cited by
Prentice, R. L., Caan, B., Chlebowski, R. T., Patterson, R., Kuller, L. H., Ockene, J. K., Margolis, K. L., Limacher, M. C., Manson, J. E., Parker, L. M., et al. (2006) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.295.6.629 · Cited by 828
López-Miranda, J., Pérez-Jiménez, F., Ros, E., De Caterina, R., Badimón, L., Covas, M. I., Escrich, E., Ordovás, J. M., Soriguer, F., Abiá, R., et al. (2010) · Nutrition, Metabolism and Cardiovascular Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.numecd.2009.12.007 · Cited by 520
Dietary patterns and breast cancer risk in Asian American women
Wu, A. H., Yu, M. C., Tseng, C.-C., Stanczyk, F. Z., & Pike, M. C. (2009) · The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.3945/ajcn.2008.26915 · Cited by 157
Searching one or two databases was insufficient for meta-analysis of observational studies
Lemeshow, A. R., Blum, R. E., Berlin, J. A., Stoto, M. A., & Colditz, G. A. (2005) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.03.004 · Cited by 137
Metadata
- Authors
- Boyd, N. F., Stone, J., Vogt, K. N., Connelly, B. S., Martin, L. J., & Minkin, S.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 2003-10-28
- Volume
- 89
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1672-1685
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W2022540212
- Cited by
- 336
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 1.23
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dietary fat and breast cancer risk revisited: a meta-analysis of the published literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601314
- The paper
- Boyd, N. F., Stone, J., Vogt, K. N., Connelly, B. S., Martin, L. J., & Minkin, S. (2003). Dietary fat and breast cancer risk revisited: a meta-analysis of the published literature. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601314
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.