ArticleInternational dental journal2026
Nutritional Determinants of Oral Cancer: A Global Population Attributable Fraction Analysis Across 185 Countries (1990-2018).
Article in International dental journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOral cancer causes approximately 390,000 new cases and 188,000 deaths annually, with substantial functional impairment affecting quality of life. Although dietary associations have been recognised, the nutrition-attributable burden at the population level remains inadequately quantified globally, particularly regarding age-, sex- and region-specific patterns.
methodsWe estimated population attributable fractions (PAFs) for 7 nutritional determinants across 185 countries from 1990 to 2018 using the Global Dietary Database and Global Burden of Disease data. A comparative risk assessment methodology with log-linear dose-response models quantified disease burden attributable to suboptimal dietary intake. Stratified analyses examined sex-specific, age-specific and regional variations. Sensitivity analyses were conducted using relative risk variation analysis, model specification comparison and bootstrap uncertainty analysis.
resultsIn 2018, fruits (-39.0%), vegetables (-38.8%) and vitamin B9 (-36.5%) exhibited the highest protective PAFs, while sugar-sweetened beverages (+36.1%) demonstrated the greatest harmful impact. The global incidence increased by 56%, despite improvements in protective factors, concurrent with a 37% increase in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption. Males consistently displayed higher PAFs than females across most nutrients (fruits: P = .004; vitamin C: P < .001; processed meats: P < .001), paralleling their 1.9-fold higher global incidence of oral cancer (5.4 vs 2.8 per 100,000). Regional PAF disparities corresponded with cancer-burden patterns: Latin America exhibited the highest sugar-sweetened beverage PAF (+40%) alongside elevated incidence rates (5.5 per 100,000), while South Asia exhibited the greatest vitamin B9 inadequacy (-40%) concurrent with a high regional burden (7.3 per 100,000 in males). Age-gradient analysis revealed that sugar-sweetened beverages disproportionately affected younger age groups (25-29 years: PAF +37.8% vs 75-79 years: PAF +28.9%). However, absolute incidence rates increased with age, reflecting the cumulative nature of cancer risk. Sensitivity analyses confirmed robust estimates (CV: 0.0023-0.0158).
conclusionsInsufficient intake of fruits (-154.9 g/d), vegetables (-211.9 g/d), vitamin B9 (-449.0 μg/d) and excess sugar-sweetened beverages (+180.1 mL/d) are the predominant modifiable risks. Nonlinear patterns and synergistic interactions suggest the need for multicomponent, region-specific interventions.
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.