Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41486949›Full record

ArticlePsychological medicine2026

Allostatic load, personality traits, and cancer risk: A prospective cohort study.

Peng Wang, Yu Peng, Han Du, Chao Sheng, Fangfang Song, Hongji Dai, Kexin Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Peng WangDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Key Laboratory of Prevention and Control of Human Major Diseases of the Ministry of Education, Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology of Tianjin, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Yu PengDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Key Laboratory of Prevention and Control of Human Major Diseases of the Ministry of Education, Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology of Tianjin, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Han DuDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Key Laboratory of Prevention and Control of Human Major Diseases of the Ministry of Education, Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology of Tianjin, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Chao ShengDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Key Laboratory of Prevention and Control of Human Major Diseases of the Ministry of Education, Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology of Tianjin, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Fangfang SongDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Key Laboratory of Prevention and Control of Human Major Diseases of the Ministry of Education, Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology of Tianjin, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Hongji DaiDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Key Laboratory of Prevention and Control of Human Major Diseases of the Ministry of Education, Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology of Tianjin, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.
Kexin ChenDepartment of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Key Laboratory of Prevention and Control of Human Major Diseases of the Ministry of Education, Key Laboratory of Molecular Cancer Epidemiology of Tianjin, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin's Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, Tianjin Medical University, Tianjin, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4248-7681

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 82430107National Natural Science Foundation of China 82473702
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCumulative stress exposure is extensively involved in carcinogenesis. However, cancer risk associated with allostatic load (AL), a valid measure of chronic stress, has not been comprehensively evaluated in large cohorts, and the combined effect of AL and personality trait on cancer risk remains unknown.

methodsThis prospective cohort study was conducted based on 245,683 participants from the UK Biobank, with a median follow-up of 13.5 years. The AL score was calculated based on 11 biomarkers. Personality traits were constructed and categorized into two clusters. Multivariable Cox regression model was used to assess the risk of incident cancer according to AL and personality clusters, and multiplicative and additive interactions were evaluated.

resultsHigh AL was associated with an increased cancer risk compared to low AL (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04-1.09), particularly for cancers of stomach, liver, kidney, esophageal, lung, colorectal, breast, and leukemia (HR ranged from 1.08 to 1.43). Personality clusters was associated with risk of lung cancer (HR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.05-1.23), but not overall cancer. Significant synergistic interaction was observed between high AL and 'nervous-dominant' personality for overall cancer risk, with the strongest association observed for liver cancer (HR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.24-2.02).

conclusionsHigh AL was related to higher risks of overall cancer and site-specific cancers, particularly when combined with nervous-dominant personality, highlighting the interplay between chronic physiological stress and psychological factors in cancer development.

Indexed as

AllostasisNeoplasmsPersonalityStress, PsychologicalAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProportional Hazards ModelsProspective StudiesRisk FactorsUnited Kingdomallostatic Loadcancer riskchronic stresscohort studypersonality

Identifiers

PMID41486949
PMCPMC13095360

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.