ArticleBMC medicine2025
Higher adherence to the EAT-Lancet reference diet is inversely associated with mortality in a UK population of cancer survivors.
Article in BMC medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The Health and Environmental Impacts, Safety, and Affordability of the EAT-Lancet Planetary Health Diet: A Multidisciplinary Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Advances in nutrition (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Pooled it
- Adherence to the EAT-Lancet Diet, plasma proteomics, and risk of venous thromboembolism: a large-scale prospective cohort study.BMC medicine · 2026Article
- Adherence to the EAT-Lancet Diet and Risk of Sepsis: A Prospective Cohort Study from the UK Biobank.NPJ science of food · 2026Article
- Association of adherence to the EAT-Lancet diet and risk of uterine cancer: a prospective cohort from the UK Biobank.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSignificant advancements in treatment and care, as well as early detection, have contributed to an increase in cancer survival rates. Recently, the EAT-Lancet Commission on Food, Planet, Health proposed the "planetary health diet" but to date, no study has investigated the potential associations between adherence to the EAT-Lancet reference diet and mortality in cancer survivors. To determine whether higher adherence to the EAT-Lancet reference diet is associated with lower risk for all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality in cancer survivors.
methodsData from the prospective UK Biobank study were used. Information from UK Biobank's Touchscreen questionnaire was used to develop a score reflecting adherence to the EAT-Lancet reference diet. Cox proportional hazards regression was used to assess the association of the EAT-Lancet reference diet score with all-cause, cancer, and cardiovascular mortality in cancer survivors.
resultsWithin 25,348 cancer survivors, better adherence to the EAT-Lancet reference diet was inversely related to all-cause mortality (hazard ratio (HR): 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.95-0.99), 1 unit increase) and cancer mortality (HR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.96-1.00), while mostly null associations were observed for major cardiovascular mortality (HR: 0.99, 95% CI: 0.95-1.03).
conclusionsOur findings suggest the adoption of the EAT-Lancet reference diet is associated with lower all-cause and cancer-specific mortality among cancer survivors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.