Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 862

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Meat, Fish, and Colorectal Cancer Risk: The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition

Open access
Norat, Teresa, Bingham, Sheila, Ferrari, Pietro, Slimani, Nadia, Jenab, Mazda, Mazuir, Mathieu, Overvad, Kim, Olsen, Anja, Tjønneland, Anne, Clavel, Francoise, Boutron-Ruault, Marie-Christine, Kesse, Emmanuelle, Boeing, Heiner, Bergmann, Manuela M., Nieters, Alexandra, Linseisen, Jakob, Trichopoulou, Antonia, Trichopoulos, Dimitrios, Tountas, Yannis, Berrino, Franco, Palli, Domenico, Panico, Salvatore, Tumino, Rosario, Vineis, Paolo, Bueno-de-Mesquita, H. Bas, Peeters, Petra H. M., Engeset, Dagrun, Lund, Eiliv, Skeie, Guri, Ardanaz, Eva, González, Carlos, Navarro, Carmen, Quirós, J. Ramón, Sanchez, María-José, Berglund, Göran, Mattisson, Irene, Hallmans, Göran, Palmqvist, Richard, Day, Nicholas E., Khaw, Kay-Tee, Key, Timothy J., San Joaquin, Miguel, Hémon, Bertrand, Saracci, Rodolfo, Kaaks, Rudolf, Riboli, Elio·2005·JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Current evidence suggests that high red meat intake is associated with increased colorectal cancer risk. High fish intake may be associated with a decreased risk, but the existing evidence is less convincing. METHODS: We prospectively followed 478 040 men and women from 10 European countries who were free of cancer at enrollment between 1992 and 1998. Information on diet and lifestyle was collected at baseline. After a mean follow-up of 4.8 years, 1329 incident colorectal cancers were documented. We examined the relationship between intakes of red and processed meat, poultry, and fish and colorectal cancer risk using a proportional hazards model adjusted for age, sex, energy (nonfat and fat sources), height, weight, work-related physical activity, smoking status, dietary fiber and folate, and alcohol consumption, stratified by center. A calibration substudy based on 36 994 subjects was used to correct hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for diet measurement errors. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Colorectal cancer risk was positively associated with intake of red and processed meat (highest [>160 g/day] versus lowest [<20 g/day] intake, HR = 1.35, 95% CI = 0.96 to 1.88; Ptrend = .03) and inversely associated with intake of fish (>80 g/day versus <10 g/day, HR = 0.69, 95 % CI = 0.54 to 0.88; Ptrend<.001), but was not related to poultry intake. Correcting for measurement error strengthened the associations between colorectal cancer and red and processed meat intake (per 100-g increase HR = 1.25, 95% CI =1.09 to 1.41, Ptrend = .001 and HR = 1.55, 95% CI = 1.19 to 2.02, Ptrend = .001 before and after calibration, respectively) and for fish (per 100 g increase HR = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.57 to 0.87, Ptrend<.001 and HR = 0.46, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.77, Ptrend = .003; before and after correction, respectively). In this study population, the absolute risk of development of colorectal cancer within 10 years for a study subject aged 50 years was 1.71% for the highest category of red and processed meat intake and 1.28% for the lowest category of intake and was 1.86% for subjects in the lowest category of fish intake and 1.28% for subjects in the highest category of fish intake. CONCLUSIONS: Our data confirm that colorectal cancer risk is positively associated with high consumption of red and processed meat and support an inverse association with fish intake.

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 · 10.1093/jnci/dji164

Cites

1 of 1 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 1 references

Cited by

See all 862

Metadata

Authors
Norat, T., Bingham, S., Ferrari, P., Slimani, N., Jenab, M., Mazuir, M., Overvad, K., Olsen, A., Tjønneland, A., Clavel, F., Boutron-Ruault, M.-C., Kesse, E., Boeing, H., Bergmann, M. M., Nieters, A., Linseisen, J., Trichopoulou, A., Trichopoulos, D., Tountas, Y., Berrino, F., Palli, D., Panico, S., Tumino, R., Vineis, P., Bueno-de-Mesquita, H. B., Peeters, P. H. M., Engeset, D., Lund, E., Skeie, G., Ardanaz, E., González, C., Navarro, C., Quirós, J. R., Sanchez, M.-J., Berglund, G., Mattisson, I., Hallmans, G., Palmqvist, R., Day, N. E., Khaw, K.-T., Key, T. J., San Joaquin, M., Hémon, B., Saracci, R., Kaaks, R., & Riboli, E.
Venue
JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute
Published
2005-06-15
Volume
97
Issue
12
Pages
906-916
ISSN
  • 0027-8874 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2105
OpenAlex
W2167370693
Cited by
862
References
1
FWCI
57.58
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: Meat, Fish, and Colorectal Cancer Risk: The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/jnci/dji164
The paper
Norat, T., Bingham, S., Ferrari, P., Slimani, N., Jenab, M., Mazuir, M., Overvad, K., Olsen, A., Tjønneland, A., Clavel, F., Boutron-Ruault, M.-C., Kesse, E., Boeing, H., Bergmann, M. M., Nieters, A., Linseisen, J., Trichopoulou, A., Trichopoulos, D., Tountas, Y., . . . Riboli, E. (2005). Meat, Fish, and Colorectal Cancer Risk: The European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji164

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.