SynthesisAmerican journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council2026
Second-to-Fourth Digit (2D:4D) Ratio as A Risk Factor for Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in American journal of human biology : the official journal of the Human Biology Council, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe second-to-fourth digit (2D:4D) ratio is an established marker of prenatal sex hormone exposure and has been associated with various health outcomes across the lifespan. Increasing evidence suggests that developmental factors reflected by the 2D:4D ratio may contribute to susceptibility to musculoskeletal disorders, including osteoarthritis (OA) and osteoporosis (OP).
aimThis systematic review aimed to synthesize the available evidence regarding the association between 2D:4D ratio and the risk of OA and OP.
methodsThis systematic review was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines and registered in PROSPERO (CRD420261439840). A comprehensive literature search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus between April and May 2026. Observational studies investigating the relationship between 2D:4D ratio and OA or OP related outcomes were included. Study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment were independently performed by three reviewers. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools.
resultsNine studies met the inclusion criteria, comprising eight studies on OA and one study on OP. Most studies reported that lower 2D:4D ratios or Type III finger patterns were associated with increased OA risk, greater radiographic severity, and a higher likelihood of severe knee OA requiring joint replacement. Associations were particularly evident for knee and hand OA, with several studies reporting stronger associations in women than in men. In contrast, evidence regarding OP was limited, as only one eligible study specifically investigated OP. Methodological heterogeneity was observed across studies regarding digit ratio assessment methods and disease definitions.
conclusionCurrent evidence suggests that lower 2D:4D ratios are associated with OA-related outcomes, particularly in knee and hand OA, with several studies indicating stronger associations in women. These findings suggest that variation in 2D:4D may reflect developmental and sex-dependent patterns of musculoskeletal health rather than a causal relationship. However, evidence regarding OP remains insufficient to draw definitive conclusions. Further large-scale prospective studies using standardized assessment methods are needed to clarify these associations and their underlying biological mechanisms.
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.