ArticleBMC women's health2025
Association between gynecological cancers and female infertility: insights from bidirectional Mendelian randomization analysis.
Article in BMC women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn recent years, research interest in the potential link between female infertility (FI) and gynecological cancer (GC), including ovarian cancer (OC), endometrial cancer (EC), cervical cancer (CC), and breast cancer (BC), has grown, yet findings remain inconclusive. This study aims to explore the causal relationship between FI and GC using bidirectional two-sample Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses, thereby informing future strategies for FI and GC prevention.
methodsWe utilized SNPs identified from genome-wide association studies (GWAS) on FI and GC. The inverse variance weighted (IVW) method served as the primary approach to assess the causal association between FI and GC. Additionally, five other MR methods-Weighted median, Weighted mode, MR-Egger, Simple mode, and Robust-Adjusted Profile Score-were employed to enhance result robustness and credibility.
resultsIn the forward MR analysis, our IVW results indicated no significant association between FI and GC (FI-BC: OR = 0.95, 95% CI: 0.83-1.09, P = 0.47, P-FDR = 0.775; FI-OC: OR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.84-1.24, P = 0.789, P-FDR = 0.896; FI-CC: OR = 0.80, 95% CI: 0.61-1.06, P = 0.118, P-FDR = 0.775; FI-EC: OR = 1.07, 95% CI: 0.88-1.30, P = 0.490, P-FDR = 0.775).In the reverse MR analysis, we found a marginal association between BC and FI. However, after adjusting for multiple testing using the FDR method, no significant causal relationship was found between BC and FI, suggesting a marginal association (OR = 1.054, 95% CI: 1.001-1.108, P = 0.043, P-FDR = 0.331). For other cancers, no significant causal relationships were observed between OC, CC and EC with FI(OC-FI: OR = 1.043, 95% CI: 0.999-1.087, P = 0.051, P-FDR = 0.331;CC-FI: OR = 0.992, 95% CI: 0.956-1.028, P = 0.654, P-FDR = 0.836; EC-FI: OR = 1.006, 95% CI: 0.956-1.055, P = 0.809, P-FDR = 0.885).
conclusionsOur study found no significant causal relationship between FI and GC. However, a potential marginal association between BC and FI was observed. These findings underscore the need for further research to confirm this association and emphasize the importance of reproductive protection for young breast cancer patients to preserve fertility.
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.