ArticleScientific reports2025
Association between digit ratio (2D:4D) and right-left difference in 2D:4D ratio with breast cancer risk: multicentre case-control study from India.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Second-To-Fourth Digit Ratio (2D:4D) in Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council · 2026Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recently, the second to fourth fingers/digits ratio (2D:4D) has been reported to be associated with breast cancer (BC). We aimed to assess whether this association exists in Indian population. We derived the 2D:4D of right and left-hand from length of the index and ring finger, measured using Vernier callipers. We also calculated the right minus left 2D:4D (DR−L). For 1638 BC cases and 1723 controls, univariate unconditional logistic regression model was used to estimate odds ratio (OR) with its corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI). We observed reduced risk of BC with increase in right 2D:4D in pre- menopausal women (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.52–0.96), while for post-menopausal women there was non-significant positive association. For left 2D:4D, non-significant slight increased risk of BC was observed in the highest category amongst the premenopausal women (OR: 1.12, 95% CI: 0.82–1.52). For DR−L we observed inverse association in pre-menopausal women only (OR: 0.73, 95% CI: 0.58–0.92). The association between the 2D:4D ratio and BC risk was weak and inconsistent across pre-/post-menopausal groups. Larger and more precise studies with longitudinal follow-up, and reduced random measurement error are needed to clarify whether a clinically meaningful 2D:4D ratio threshold can reliably predict BC risk.
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.