Cited by 88Diet, Metabolism, and DiseaseNutritional Studies and DietObesity, Physical Activity, Diet

Epidemiologic assessment of sugars consumption using biomarkers: comparisons of obese and nonobese individuals in the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer Norfolk

Open access
Bingham, Sheila, Luben, Robert, Welch, Ailsa, Tasevska, Natasa, Wareham, Nick, Khaw, Kay Tee·2007·Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract

We have previously shown that urinary sugars excretion in 24 h urine collections can serve as an independent biomarker of sugars consumption. In the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC) Norfolk study of nutrition and cancer, this biomarker in spot urines has been assessed in a cross-sectional comparison of 404 obese individuals aged 45 to 75 years with a body mass index (BMI) of >30 kg/m(2) and 471 normal weight individuals aged 45 to 75 years with a BMI of <25 kg/m(2). In individuals of normal weight, sucrose, protein, and vitamin C intake were positively and highly significantly related to biomarkers in spot urine or plasma (P < 0.001), but there were no significant associations between biomarkers and food intake reports in the obese. Odds ratios for a BMI of >30 were significantly elevated for urinary sucrose [trend per milligram per liter quintile, 1.13; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 1.02-1.25; P = 0.016], and the odds ratio for urinary sucrose/fructose ratio was highly significant (trend per quintile, 1.264; 95% CI, 1.142-1.401; P < 0.001). No associations for sugars intake and obesity were found using a food frequency questionnaire, and dietary vitamin C was apparently associated with increased risk (P < 0.001) despite an inverse association for plasma vitamin C. Nutritional biomarkers of consumption can complement existing methods for assessing cancer risk from diet in epidemiologic studies.

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 · 10.1158/1055-9965.epi-06-1050

Cites

20 of 20 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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-reported dietary assessment methods contain random and systematic errors, including recall bias and difficulty in assessing portion sizes.

    “However, a number of random and systematic errors are inherent in such methods, including recall bias and difficulty in assessing portion sizes (11).”

    From The food metabolome: a window over dietary exposure (2014) · cites this paper as [11]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bingham, S., Luben, R., Welch, A., Tasevska, N., Wareham, N., & Khaw, K. T.
Affiliations
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
  • Medical Research Council (GB)
  • 1Medical Research Council Dunn Human Nutrition Unit,
  • 3European Prospective Investigation of Cancer Norfolk, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, and
Venue
Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention
Published
2007-08-01
Volume
16
Issue
8
Pages
1651-1654
ISSN
  • 1055-9965 (ISSN-L)
  • 1538-7755
OpenAlex
W2156077595
Cited by
88
References
20
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
FWCI
2.20
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • British Heart Foundation
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Endocrinology, Diabetes and Metabolism › Diet, Metabolism, and Disease
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Nutritional Studies and Diet
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Obesity, Physical Activity, Diet
Keywords
dietary sugar, obesity, dietary biomarkers, fructose, vitamin C, body mass index, food frequency questionnaire, cancer risk, EPIC-Norfolk
MeSH terms
Aged, Ascorbic Acid, Body Weight, Cross-Sectional Studies, Dietary Carbohydrates, Dietary Proteins, Eating, Europe, Feeding Behavior, Female, Fructose, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Obesity, Prospective Studies, Vitamins, Cohort Studies, Biomarkers, Body Mass Index, Epidemiologic Studies, Dietary Sucrose

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