Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42257587›Full record

ReviewCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2026

Ultra-processed Foods and Gastrointestinal Cancer: Epidemiologic Evidence, Mechanistic Pathways, and Clinical Implications.

Derek Tai, Kareem Latif, Pranati Shah, Gajaan Sittambalam, Rahel Demisse, Kanithra Sekaran, Jun Gong, Jane C Figueiredo, Louisa Liu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Derek TaiDepartment of Internal Medicine, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California.ORCID 0000-0002-6461-5560
Kareem LatifDepartment of Internal Medicine, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California.ORCID 0000-0002-2417-7981
Pranati ShahDepartment of Internal Medicine, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California.ORCID 0009-0003-0331-892X
Gajaan SittambalamDepartment of Internal Medicine, Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Hospital, Los Angeles, California.ORCID 0009-0009-4606-3705
Rahel DemisseDepartment of Internal Medicine, Loma Linda University Medical Center, Loma Linda, California.ORCID 0000-0002-1114-3432
Kanithra SekaranDepartment of Medicine, Northwestern Medicine, Chicago, Illinois.ORCID 0009-0004-5357-1859
Jun GongDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.ORCID 0000-0001-8713-1406
Jane C FigueiredoDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.ORCID 0000-0001-8040-3341
Louisa LiuDepartment of Hematology and Oncology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, Los Angeles, California.ORCID 0000-0002-5659-929X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Ultra-processed foods (UPF), which the NOVA classification defines as industrial formulations composed largely of refined ingredients and additives, now account for a majority of caloric intake in many high-income countries. Epidemiologic evidence suggests that high UPF consumption may contribute to gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies independent of traditional nutrient-based dietary metrics. This review examines associations between UPF intake and colorectal, gastric, esophageal, and pancreatic cancers, integrating mechanisms that support biological plausibility. The association between UPF consumption and colorectal cancer is the most consistent, with a 10% to 30% increased risk among individuals with the highest intake. Evidence also suggests associations with noncardia gastric cancer and esophageal adenocarcinoma although data remain limited. Findings for pancreatic cancer are inconclusive. Mechanistically, ultra-processing may promote carcinogenesis through multiple pathways. Disruption of the food matrix and rapid glycemic absorption may activate insulin and insulin-like growth factor signaling. Low fiber content and additive exposure may alter the gut microbiome, reduce short-chain fatty acid production, impair intestinal barrier integrity, and promote chronic inflammation. Nitrates, nitrites, and emulsifiers in UPFs demonstrate proinflammatory and carcinogenic effects in experimental models. Although observational design limits causal inference, the consistency of epidemiologic associations, dose-response relationships, and supporting mechanistic data suggest UPF reduction may represent a potential GI cancer prevention strategy.

Indexed as

Fast FoodsGastrointestinal NeoplasmsHumansRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID42257587
PMCPMC13430212

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.