A

Alicja Wolk

Karolinska Institutet

ORCID: 0000-0001-7387-6845

Publishes on Nutritional Studies and Diet, Genetic Associations and Epidemiology, Cancer Risks and Factors. 1.1k papers and 83.9k citations.

1.1kPublications
83.9kTotal Citations

Is this you? Claim your profile.

Add your photo, update your bio, and get notified when your ranking changes.

Top publicationsby citations

Body-Mass Index and Mortality among 1.46 Million White Adults
Amy Berrington de González, Patricia Hartge, James R. Cerhan et al.|New England Journal of Medicine|2010
Cited by 2.3kOpen Access

BACKGROUND: A high body-mass index (BMI, the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) is associated with increased mortality from cardiovascular disease and certain cancers, but the precise relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality remains uncertain. METHODS: We used Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios and 95% confidence intervals for an association between BMI and all-cause mortality, adjusting for age, study, physical activity, alcohol consumption, education, and marital status in pooled data from 19 prospective studies encompassing 1.46 million white adults, 19 to 84 years of age (median, 58). RESULTS: The median baseline BMI was 26.2. During a median follow-up period of 10 years (range, 5 to 28), 160,087 deaths were identified. Among healthy participants who never smoked, there was a J-shaped relationship between BMI and all-cause mortality. With a BMI of 22.5 to 24.9 as the reference category, hazard ratios among women were 1.47 (95 percent confidence interval [CI], 1.33 to 1.62) for a BMI of 15.0 to 18.4; 1.14 (95% CI, 1.07 to 1.22) for a BMI of 18.5 to 19.9; 1.00 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.04) for a BMI of 20.0 to 22.4; 1.13 (95% CI, 1.09 to 1.17) for a BMI of 25.0 to 29.9; 1.44 (95% CI, 1.38 to 1.50) for a BMI of 30.0 to 34.9; 1.88 (95% CI, 1.77 to 2.00) for a BMI of 35.0 to 39.9; and 2.51 (95% CI, 2.30 to 2.73) for a BMI of 40.0 to 49.9. In general, the hazard ratios for the men were similar. Hazard ratios for a BMI below 20.0 were attenuated with longer-term follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: In white adults, overweight and obesity (and possibly underweight) are associated with increased all-cause mortality. All-cause mortality is generally lowest with a BMI of 20.0 to 24.9.

Association of Leisure-Time Physical Activity With Risk of 26 Types of Cancer in 1.44 Million Adults
Steven C. Moore, I‐Min Lee, Elisabete Weiderpass et al.|JAMA Internal Medicine|2016
Cited by 1.5kOpen Access

IMPORTANCE: Leisure-time physical activity has been associated with lower risk of heart-disease and all-cause mortality, but its association with risk of cancer is not well understood. OBJECTIVE: To determine the association of leisure-time physical activity with incidence of common types of cancer and whether associations vary by body size and/or smoking. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We pooled data from 12 prospective US and European cohorts with self-reported physical activity (baseline, 1987-2004). We used multivariable Cox regression to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals for associations of leisure-time physical activity with incidence of 26 types of cancer. Leisure-time physical activity levels were modeled as cohort-specific percentiles on a continuous basis and cohort-specific results were synthesized by random-effects meta-analysis. Hazard ratios for high vs low levels of activity are based on a comparison of risk at the 90th vs 10th percentiles of activity. The data analysis was performed from January 1, 2014, to June 1, 2015. EXPOSURES: Leisure-time physical activity of a moderate to vigorous intensity. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Incident cancer during follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 1.44 million participants (median [range] age, 59 [19-98] years; 57% female) and 186 932 cancers were included. High vs low levels of leisure-time physical activity were associated with lower risks of 13 cancers: esophageal adenocarcinoma (HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.89), liver (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.55-0.98), lung (HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.71-0.77), kidney (HR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.70-0.85), gastric cardia (HR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.64-0.95), endometrial (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.68-0.92), myeloid leukemia (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.70-0.92), myeloma (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72-0.95), colon (HR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.77-0.91), head and neck (HR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.78-0.93), rectal (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80-0.95), bladder (HR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.82-0.92), and breast (HR, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.87-0.93). Body mass index adjustment modestly attenuated associations for several cancers, but 10 of 13 inverse associations remained statistically significant after this adjustment. Leisure-time physical activity was associated with higher risks of malignant melanoma (HR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.16-1.40) and prostate cancer (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.03-1.08). Associations were generally similar between overweight/obese and normal-weight individuals. Smoking status modified the association for lung cancer but not other smoking-related cancers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Leisure-time physical activity was associated with lower risks of many cancer types. Health care professionals counseling inactive adults should emphasize that most of these associations were evident regardless of body size or smoking history, supporting broad generalizability of findings.

Meta-Analysis for Linear and Nonlinear Dose-Response Relations: Examples, an Evaluation of Approximations, and Software
Nicola Orsini, Ruifeng Li, Alicja Wolk et al.|American Journal of Epidemiology|2011
Cited by 1.3kOpen Access

Two methods for point and interval estimation of relative risk for log-linear exposure-response relations in meta-analyses of published ordinal categorical exposure-response data have been proposed. The authors compared the results of a meta-analysis of published data using each of the 2 methods with the results that would be obtained if the primary data were available and investigated the circumstances under which the approximations required for valid use of each meta-analytic method break down. They then extended the methods to handle nonlinear exposure-response relations. In the present article, methods are illustrated using studies of the relation between alcohol consumption and colorectal and lung cancer risks from the ongoing Pooling Project of Prospective Studies of Diet and Cancer. In these examples, the differences between the results of a meta-analysis of summarized published data and the pooled analysis of the individual original data were small. However, incorrectly assuming no correlation between relative risk estimates for exposure categories from the same study gave biased confidence intervals for the trend and biased P values for the tests for nonlinearity and between-study heterogeneity when there was strong confounding by other model covariates. The authors illustrate the use of 2 publicly available user-friendly programs (Stata and SAS) to implement meta-analysis for dose-response data.

Diabetes Mellitus and Risk of Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis
Susanna C. Larsson, Nicola Orsini, Alicja Wolk|JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute|2005
Cited by 1kOpen Access

BACKGROUND: Diabetes has been associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer in most, but not all, studies. Findings have also been inconclusive with regard to sex and subsite in the colorectum. To resolve these inconsistencies, we conducted a meta-analysis of published data on the association between diabetes and the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. METHODS: We identified studies by a literature search of Medline from January 1, 1966, through July 31, 2005, and by searching the reference lists of pertinent articles. Summary relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with a random-effects model. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: Analysis of 15 studies (six case-control and nine cohort studies), including 2 593 935 participants, found that diabetes was associated with an increased risk of colorectal cancer, compared with no diabetes (summary RR of colorectal cancer incidence = 1.30, 95% CI = 1.20 to 1.40), without heterogeneity between studies (P(heterogeneity) = .21). These results were consistent between case-control and cohort studies and between studies conducted in the United States and in Europe. The association between diabetes and colorectal cancer incidence did not differ statistically significantly by sex (summary RR among women = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.23 to 1.44; summary RR among men = 1.29, 95% CI = 1.15 to 1.44; P(heterogeneity) = .26) or by cancer subsite (summary RR for colon = 1.43, 95% CI = 1.28 to 1.60; summary RR for rectum = 1.33, 95% CI = 1.14 to 1.54; P(heterogeneity) = .42). Diabetes was positively associated with colorectal cancer mortality (summary RR = 1.26, 95% CI = 1.05 to 1.50), but there was evidence for heterogeneity between studies (P(heterogeneity) = .04). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings strongly support a relationship between diabetes and increased risk of colon and rectal cancer in both women and men.