SynthesisPeerJ2026
The multifaceted role of bile acids in breast cancer: pathogenesis, therapeutic potential, and drug delivery.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Bile acids (BAs), once often considered tumor-promoting, are now recognized for their complex roles in breast cancer. Their effects are influenced by the gut microbiota and may vary across cancer subtypes and exposure contexts. Objectives: This systematic review aims to summarize the current evidence on the clinical relevance, molecular mechanisms, and therapeutic applications of BAs in breast cancer. Methods: We performed a systematic literature search of four international (PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library) and two Chinese (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang) databases, along with clinical trial registries, from inception to February 8, 2026. Study selection adhered to PRISMA guidelines, and we focused on original studies investigating the role of BAs in breast cancer pathogenesis, therapy, or drug development. Results: Evidence mapping across clinical profiling, receptor biology, direct BA interventions, and translational applications indicates that human BA measurements do not converge on a stable systemic "BA signature". Our qualitative heterogeneity assessment indicates that the apparent contradictions are largely driven by differences in exposure compartment, comparator definition, analytical platform and BA speciation/coverage, and variable control of clinical confounders and subtype/stage or treatment background. When these sources of heterogeneity are considered, more coherent patterns emerge: receptor studies support context-dependent outputs across tumor subtypes and microenvironmental states, while direct BA interventions report both anti-tumor and pro-tumor phenotypes that depend strongly on BA species/form and concentration, with many Conclusion: The BA system represents a promising but challenging therapeutic target for breast cancer. However, its clinical translation requires carefully designed strategies to overcome major hurdles. The inherent lack of tissue specificity poses risks for systemic toxicity. Future efforts must focus on developing tumor-targeted approaches, understanding the gut-microbiome-liver-breast axis, and performing subtype-stratified (especially estrogen receptor status-stratified) research to establish robust patient stratification biomarkers and safely realize the potential of BA-based therapies.
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.