Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Long-term health and immunity

Sodiumand Gastric cancer risk

Only one source here so far, and it measured higher gastric cancer risk.

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.

1.171.68 risk ratio2.41

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, 2012 · 7 studies pooled

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    Habitual salt intake and risk of gastric cancer: a meta-analysis of prospective studies.

    Clin Nutr. 2012;31(4):489-98. doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2012.01.003. PMID:22296873.

    Number reported
    1.68 risk ratio
    Which way it went
    Higher
    Likely range
    1.17 to 2.41
    Source’s own words
    pooled relative risk of gastric cancer, high versus low habitual salt intake
    Who was studied
    Adult
    Compared with
    low habitual salt intake
    Amount taken
    Not in the abstract
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at Low, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
    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. Imprecision — already at Very low, the lowest rungthe abstract does not state how many participants were pooledNot in the abstract
    4. Ends at Very low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    No high disagreement reported between the 7 studies it pooled

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI-reviewed & signed — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and checked that the quote, the numbers, the units and the direction match it. No person read it. The owner authorised the agent to sign the batch with the owner's key, and every build rechecks that signature against these exact bytes.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • One do not say how many people took part.
  • Amount taken — Not in the abstract.
  • For how long — Not in the abstract.

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

Still to read for Sodium

Nine of the 18 things on our list for Sodium have no reading here yet:

  • All-cause mortality
  • Bone mineral density
  • Estimated GFR
  • Hydration Tracking
  • Kidney Stone Risk
  • LDL cholesterol
  • Left ventricular mass
  • Muscle soreness
  • Urinary calcium (24-hour)

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

  • Sodium

    Eight other questions read for it

  • Long-term health and immunity

    20 questions read under it

  • Gastric cancer risk

    No other ingredients read against it

    Alphabetical, and by nothing else.

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.