ReviewiScience2026
Bisphenol A and breast cancer: Can mechanistic plausibility be reconciled with epidemiological inconsistency?
Review in iScience, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review synthesizes current evidence on the relationship between exposure to the environmental chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, and breast cancer risk. While laboratory studies demonstrate that even low concentrations of BPA can biologically promote breast cancer development and progression by interfering with hormonal signaling, altering cellular epigenetic regulation, and remodeling the tumor microenvironment, findings from large-scale population studies remain inconsistent. We find that many epidemiological studies in adult populations have failed to establish a clear, significant association between BPA exposure and breast cancer risk. However, when investigations use more precise exposure assessment methods, such as measuring the biologically active form of BPA, or focus on exposures during critical life stages such as fetal development or puberty in genetically susceptible subgroups, a significantly increased risk is frequently observed. This suggests that BPA may not pose a uniform risk to all individuals; its impact appears to depend on the timing of exposure, individual genetic susceptibility, and coexposure with other environmental chemicals. Given the strength of the mechanistic evidence and concerns over the potential long-term health consequences of early-life exposure, we conclude that although current human epidemiological evidence is not fully consistent, prudent preventive measures to reduce population exposure to BPA, particularly during sensitive periods such as pregnancy and childhood, are warranted. Future research requires the establishment of longitudinal cohorts that track individuals from early life, utilizing more accurate exposure assessment methods, to ultimately clarify the role of BPA in breast cancer.
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.