ArticleEvolution, medicine, and public health2016
Life history theory and breast cancer risk: methodological and theoretical challenges: Response to "Is estrogen receptor negative breast cancer risk associated with a fast life history strategy?".
Article in Evolution, medicine, and public health, 2016. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Eco-oncology: Applying ecological principles to understand and manage cancer.Ecology and evolution · 2020Review
- Can postfertile life stages evolve as an anticancer mechanism?PLoS biology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a meta-analysis published by myself and co-authors, we report differences in the life history risk factors for estrogen receptor negative (ER-) and estrogen receptor positive (ER+) breast cancers. Our meta-analysis did not find the association of ER- breast cancer risk with fast life history characteristics that Hidaka and Boddy suggest in their response to our article. There are a number of possible explanations for the differences between their conclusions and the conclusions we drew from our meta-analysis, including limitations of our meta-analysis and methodological challenges in measuring and categorizing estrogen receptor status. These challenges, along with the association of ER+ breast cancer with slow life history characteristics, may make it challenging to find a clear signal of ER- breast cancer with fast life history characteristics, even if that relationship does exist. The contradictory results regarding breast cancer risk and life history characteristics illustrate a more general challenge in evolutionary medicine: often different sub-theories in evolutionary biology make contradictory predictions about disease risk. In this case, life history models predict that breast cancer risk should increase with faster life history characteristics, while the evolutionary mismatch hypothesis predicts that breast cancer risk should increase with delayed reproduction. Whether life history tradeoffs contribute to ER- breast cancer is still an open question, but current models and several lines of evidence suggest that it is a possibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.