ArticleFamilial cancer2005
Ratio of male to female births in the offspring of BRCA1 and BRCA2 carriers.
Article in Familial cancer, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Selected aspects of genetic counselling for BRCA1 mutation carriers.Hereditary cancer in clinical practice · 2007Article
- Battle of the BRCA1/BRCA2 (offspring) sex ratios: truth or consequences.Journal of medical genetics · 2006Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A recent report based on 68 families, including 17 with mutations in BRCA1, suggested that there was an excess of female offspring born to BRCA1 mutation carriers. We have examined the gender ratio among offspring of 511 mutation carriers from 116 BRCA1 families, 77 and 39 from Australia and the United States, respectively. We found no evidence for a significant deviation from the expected proportion of female offspring in the Australian pedigrees, but there was an excess of female offspring in pedigrees from the USA. Ascertainment bias probably explains this bias, rather than a link with X-chromosome inactivation as previously suggested, because the families from the USA were ascertained for the purposes of linkage studies whereas those from Australia were ascertained through Familial Cancer Clinics to which they had been referred for clinical genetic counseling and mutation testing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
15951955What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.