Cohort studycited by the Tayebat archiveabstract only checked A-UPF-02 standard review

Ultra-processed food and death in France

Association Between Ultraprocessed Food Consumption and Risk of Mortality Among Middle-aged Adults in France.

Overview

Schnabel L et al.. JAMA Intern Med 2019 · PMID 30742202 · DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7289

Each 10% more ultra-processed food was linked with 14% higher death risk.

Does the study support the specific claim? Yes · Methodological quality: moderate

Original publication

Plain-language summary

Study explained simply
What did the researchers want to find out?

Is UPF consumption associated with all-cause mortality?

How was the study done?

Prospective cohort (NutriNet-Santé), web 24-h records.

How many people, animals or samples were studied?

44,551; 602 deaths; Adults >=45 y, 73% women

What was actually found?

HR per 10% increment 1.14 (1.04-1.27); UPF 14.4% of weight, 29.1% of energy; higher UPF linked to lower income/education, living alone, higher BMI, lower activity.

How large was the observed effect?

HR 1.14 per 10%

What do the results mean in everyday life?

Association only.

What are the study's limitations?

Volunteer cohort, mostly women; Few deaths; NOVA misclassification possible; Residual confounding; Self-reported diet

What does it say about Elawady's specific claim?

Supports C-UPF-03.

Do the results apply to Germany and Europe?

High (France).

What can explicitly not be concluded from this study?

Causation.

Scientific in-depth review

1. Full reference

Authors
Schnabel L, Kesse-Guyot E, Allès B, Touvier M, Srour B, Hercberg S, Buscail C, Julia C
Journal
JAMA Intern Med
Year
2019
Identifier
PMID 30742202 DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.7289 · PMC6450295
Verification
verified – PubMed E-utilities efetch, 2026-10-25
Retracted
no
Corrections
none
Extent checked
abstract only
Conflicts of interest and funding

COI statement empty

2. Research question

Is UPF consumption associated with all-cause mortality?

3. Study design and population

Study design
Cohort study – Prospective cohort (NutriNet-Santé), web 24-h records.
Population

Adults >=45 y, 73% women

Country

France

Period

2009-2017; median 7.1 y

Sample size

44,551; 602 deaths

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

>=1 set of 3 records in first 2 years

4. Methods and endpoints

Exposure / intervention

% UPF by weight

Comparator

Per 10% increment

Endpoints

All-cause mortality

Statistical methods

Cox (age as time scale)

5. Actual results

Results

HR per 10% increment 1.14 (1.04-1.27); UPF 14.4% of weight, 29.1% of energy; higher UPF linked to lower income/education, living alone, higher BMI, lower activity.

Absolute risks

602 deaths (1.4%)

Authors' conclusion

UPF consumption appears associated with higher mortality; further studies needed.

6. Strengths

  • Detailed 24-h records

7. Weaknesses

  • Volunteer cohort, mostly women
  • Few deaths
  • NOVA misclassification possible
  • Residual confounding
  • Self-reported diet

8. Risk of bias

Orienting tool
ROBINS-E
Type of assessment
simplified assessment (abstract only)
Full formal assessment
no
Overall risk of bias
some concerns
Rationale

Socio-economic confounding.

9. Assessment of the statistical interpretation

Modest HR.

10. Relevance to the specific claim

Supports C-UPF-03.

11. Independent contrary findings

None.

12. Transferability to Germany and Europe

High (France).

13. Overall methodological judgement

Supportive cohort.

Multidimensional assessment
Multidimensional assessment
Authenticity of the sourceverified
Methodological qualitymoderate
Risk of biassome concerns
Precision of resultsmoderate
Directnessdirect
Reproducibilityreplicated
Consistency with the overall evidenceconsistent
Regional transferabilityhigh
Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)not applicable

14. Open questions

Causality.

15. Linked fact checks

Use by the Tayebat archive

Note: according to the archive, the studies were compiled by the archive operators. Whether Dr. Elawady himself cited this study is not established.

What the archive says about the study

Listed in the archive bibliography only (no archive interpretation card).

A. What was actually studied?

UPF and mortality.

B. What did the authors find?

HR 1.14 per 10%.

C. What conclusions do the authors themselves draw?

Needs confirmation.

D. What does the archive derive from it?

Supports 'all-cause mortality'.

E. Is this derivation scientifically justified?

Consistent.

Adequacy of the interpretation (by the archive)
not applicable