The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The dose-effect relationship between 'unopposed' oestrogens and endometrial mitotic rate: its central role in explaining and predicting endometrial cancer risk
Open accessAbstract
The 'unopposed oestrogen hypothesis' for endometrial cancer maintains that risk is increased by exposure to endogenous or exogenous oestrogen that is not opposed simultaneously by a progestagen, and that this increased risk is due to the induced mitotic activity of the endometrial cells. Investigation of the mitotic rate during the menstrual cycle shows that increases in plasma oestrogen concentration above the relatively low levels of the early follicular phase do not produce any further increase in the mitotic rate of endometrial cells. A modification of the unopposed oestrogen hypothesis which includes this upper limit in the response of endometrial cells to oestrogen is consistent with the known dose-effect relationships between endometrial cancer risk and both oestrogen replacement therapy and postmenopausal obesity; it also suggests that the mechanism by which obesity increases risk in premenopausal women involves progesterone deficiency rather than oestrogen excess, and that the protective effect of cigarette smoking may be greater in postmenopausal than in premenopausal women. Detailed analysis of the age-incidence curve for endometrial cancer in the light of this hypothesis suggests that there will be lifelong effects of even short duration use of exogenous hormones. In particular, 5 years of combination-type oral contraceptive use is likely to reduce a woman's lifetime risk of endometrial cancer by some 60%; whereas 5 years of unopposed oestrogen replacement therapy is likely to increase her subsequent lifetime risk by at least 90%; and even 5 years of 'adequately' opposed therapy is likely to increase subsequent lifetime risk by at least 50%.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Michnovicz, J. J., Hershcopf, R. J., Naganuma, H., Bradlow, H. L., & Fishman, J. (1986) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198611203152101 · Cited by 658
Cigarette Smoking and Urinary Estrogens
MacMahon, B., Trichopoulos, D., Cole, P., & Brown, J. (1982) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198210213071707 · Cited by 404
Cited by
Overweight, obesity and cancer: epidemiological evidence and proposed mechanisms
Calle, E. E., & Kaaks, R. (2004) · Nature reviews. Cancer · doi:10.1038/nrc1408 · Cited by 3,613
Reeves, G. K., Pirie, K., Beral, V., Green, J., Spencer, E., & Bull, D. (2007) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39367.495995.ae · Cited by 1,507
Henderson, B. E., & Feigelson, H. S. (2000) · Carcinogenesis · doi:10.1093/carcin/21.3.427 · Cited by 821
Progesterone action in endometrial cancer, endometriosis, uterine fibroids, and breast cancer
Kim, J. J., Kurita, T., & Bulun, S. E. (2013) · Endocrine Reviews · doi:10.1210/er.2012-1043 · Cited by 520
Obesity and weight management in the elderly
Han, T. S., Tajar, A., & Lean, M. E. J. (2011) · British Medical Bulletin · doi:10.1093/bmb/ldr002 · Cited by 327
Metadata
- Authors
- Key, T., & Pike, M.
- Venue
- British Journal of Cancer
- Published
- 1988-02
- Volume
- 57
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 205-212
- ISSN
- 0007-0920 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-1827
- OpenAlex
- W2086880154
- Cited by
- 547
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 4.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The dose-effect relationship between 'unopposed' oestrogens and endometrial mitotic rate: its central role in explaining and predicting endometrial cancer risk. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/bjc.1988.44
- The paper
- Key, T., & Pike, M. (1988). The dose-effect relationship between 'unopposed' oestrogens and endometrial mitotic rate: its central role in explaining and predicting endometrial cancer risk. British Journal of Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1988.44
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.