Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25389105›Full record

ArticleEvolution, medicine, and public health2014

Modern reproductive patterns associated with estrogen receptor positive but not negative breast cancer susceptibility.

C Athena Aktipis, Bruce J Ellis, Katherine K Nishimura, Robert A Hiatt

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evolution, medicine, and public health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. TP53 Pathway Function, Estrogen Receptor Status, and Breast Cancer Risk Factors in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2022
    Article
  10. Early life adversity, reproductive history and breast cancer risk.Evolution, medicine, and public health · 2022
    Article
  11. Cancer Progress and Priorities: Breast Cancer.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2021
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Cancer susceptibility and reproductive trade-offs: a model of the evolution of cancer defences.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

C Athena AktipisCenter for Evolution and Cancer, University of California San Francisco, 2340 Sutter Street S-341, Box 0128, San Francisco, CA 94143-0128, USA; Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, PO Box 871104, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104, USA; Norton School of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Arizona, 650 N Park Ave, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, Box 0560, UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA Center for Evolution and Cancer, University of California San Francisco, 2340 Sutter Street S-341, Box 0128, San Francisco, CA 94143-0128, USA; Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, PO Box 871104, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104, USA; Norton School of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Arizona, 650 N Park Ave, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, Box 0560, UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA aktipis@asu.edu.
Bruce J EllisCenter for Evolution and Cancer, University of California San Francisco, 2340 Sutter Street S-341, Box 0128, San Francisco, CA 94143-0128, USA; Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, PO Box 871104, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104, USA; Norton School of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Arizona, 650 N Park Ave, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, Box 0560, UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.
Katherine K NishimuraCenter for Evolution and Cancer, University of California San Francisco, 2340 Sutter Street S-341, Box 0128, San Francisco, CA 94143-0128, USA; Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, PO Box 871104, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104, USA; Norton School of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Arizona, 650 N Park Ave, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, Box 0560, UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.
Robert A HiattCenter for Evolution and Cancer, University of California San Francisco, 2340 Sutter Street S-341, Box 0128, San Francisco, CA 94143-0128, USA; Department of Psychology, Arizona State University, PO Box 871104, Tempe, AZ 85287-1104, USA; Norton School of Family and Consumer Sciences, University of Arizona, 650 N Park Ave, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California San Francisco, Box 0560, UCSF, San Francisco, CA 94143, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has long been accepted that modern reproductive patterns are likely contributors to breast cancer susceptibility because of their influence on hormones such as estrogen and the importance of these hormones in breast cancer. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess whether this 'evolutionary mismatch hypothesis' can explain susceptibility to both estrogen receptor positive (ER-positive) and estrogen receptor negative (ER-negative) cancer. Our meta-analysis includes a total of 33 studies and examines parity, age of first birth and age of menarche broken down by estrogen receptor status. We found that modern reproductive patterns are more closely linked to ER-positive than ER-negative breast cancer. Thus, the evolutionary mismatch hypothesis for breast cancer can account for ER-positive breast cancer susceptibility but not ER-negative breast cancer.

Indexed as

age of first birthbreast cancer heterogeneitycancer evolutionevolutionary mismatchhormone-associated breast cancerparity

Identifiers

PMID25389105
PMCPMC4362290

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.