Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 657

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Cohort Studies of Fat Intake and the Risk of Breast Cancer — A Pooled Analysis

Open access
Hunter, David J., Spiegelman, Donna, Adami, Hans-Olov, Beeson, Lawrence, van den Brandt, Piet A., Folsom, Aaron R., Fraser, Gary E., Goldbohm, R. Alexandra, Graham, Saxon, Howe, Geoffrey R., Kushi, Lawrence H., Marshall, James R., McDermott, Aidan, Miller, Anthony B., Speizer, Frank E., Wolk, Alicja, Yaun, Shiaw-Shyuan, Willett, Walter·1996·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Experiments in animals, international correlation comparisons, and case-control studies support an association between dietary fat intake and the incidence of breast cancer. Most cohort studies do not corroborate the association, but they have been criticized for involving small numbers of cases, homogeneous fat intake, and measurement errors in estimates of fat intake. METHODS: We identified seven prospective studies in four countries that met specific criteria and analyzed the primary data in a standardized manner. Pooled estimates of the relation of fat intake to the risk of breast cancer were calculated, and data from study-specific validation studies were used to adjust the results for measurement error. RESULTS: Information about 4980 cases from studies including 337,819 women was available. When women in the highest quintile of energy-adjusted total fat intake were compared with women in the lowest quintile, the multivariate pooled relative risk of breast cancer was 1.05 (95 percent confidence interval, 0.94 to 1.16). Relative risks for saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fat and for cholesterol, considered individually, were also close to unity. There was little overall association between the percentage of energy intake from fat and the risk of breast cancer, even among women whose energy intake from fat was less than 20 percent. Correcting for error in the measurement of nutrient intake did not materially alter these findings. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a positive association between total dietary fat intake and the risk of breast cancer. There was no reduction in risk even among women whose energy intake from fat was less than 20 percent of total energy intake. In the context of the Western lifestyle, lowering the total intake of fat in midlife is unlikely to reduce the risk of breast cancer substantially.

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 · 10.1056/nejm199602083340603

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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 6 references

Cited by

See all 657

Metadata

Authors
Hunter, D. J., Spiegelman, D., Adami, H.-O., Beeson, L., van den Brandt, P. A., Folsom, A. R., Fraser, G. E., Goldbohm, R. A., Graham, S., Howe, G. R., Kushi, L. H., Marshall, J. R., McDermott, A., Miller, A. B., Speizer, F. E., Wolk, A., Yaun, S.-S., & Willett, W.
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
1996-02-08
Volume
334
Issue
6
Pages
356-361
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2317753830
Cited by
657
References
6
FWCI
22.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Cohort Studies of Fat Intake and the Risk of Breast Cancer — A Pooled Analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1056/nejm199602083340603
The paper
Hunter, D. J., Spiegelman, D., Adami, H.-O., Beeson, L., van den Brandt, P. A., Folsom, A. R., Fraser, G. E., Goldbohm, R. A., Graham, S., Howe, G. R., Kushi, L. H., Marshall, J. R., McDermott, A., Miller, A. B., Speizer, F. E., Wolk, A., Yaun, S.-S., & Willett, W. (1996). Cohort Studies of Fat Intake and the Risk of Breast Cancer — A Pooled Analysis. New England Journal of Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm199602083340603

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.