Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Long-term health and immunity

Copperand All-cause mortality

Only one source here so far, and it measured higher all-cause mortality.

How sure anyone can be

Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

Any estimate here is very uncertain.

The numbers reported

One source’s range, drawn against its own line of no difference and scaled to its own numbers.

1.581.89 hazard ratio2.25

This range stays on one side of the no-difference line.

Bar the confidence interval — the range the true effect is likely to sit inNotch the number the source reportedLine where there would be no difference at all

One source, newest first

What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.

  • Cohort study, 2023 · 4 studies pooled · 13,189 participants

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    Association of serum copper (Cu) with cardiovascular mortality and all-cause mortality in a general population: a prospective cohort study.

    BMC Public Health. 2023;23(1):2138. doi:10.1186/s12889-023-17018-3. PMID:37915007.

    Number reported
    1.89 hazard ratio
    Which way it went
    Higher
    Likely range
    1.58 to 2.25
    Source’s own words
    hazard ratio for all-cause mortality, higher vs lower serum copper
    Who was studied
    Adult
    Compared with
    lower serum copper
    Amount taken
    Recorded detail — serum copper concentration (observational, not a supplement dose)
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    not reported in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at Low, one step down: risk of bias
    1. Starts at Low
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Very lowthe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Ends at Very lowOne step down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness and imprecision
    Inconsistency
    No high disagreement reported between the 4 studies it pooled

    AI review could not confirm it — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and at least one check failed. The batch record names the check and quotes the sentence that caused the doubt. No person read it.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • For how long — Not in the abstract.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Still to read for Copper

Eight of the 16 things on our list for Copper have no reading here yet:

  • HDL cholesterol
  • Hematocrit
  • Hemoglobin
  • Neutrophils, Absolute
  • Serum iron
  • Symptom Radar (Sickness Detection)
  • Triglycerides
  • White blood cell count

Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.

Read next

This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.