Skip to the main content
Open WellbeingWhat the studies actually measured

Hormones, thyroid and fertility

Boronand Estradiol

Two sources here, and they say different things: one measured lower estradiol and one measured higher.

How sure anyone can be

Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

Any estimate here is very uncertain.

The most certain of the two findings here; each record carries its own.

The numbers reported

No number has been put on this yet. Two sources recorded only which way the numbers went — for now, that is all we have here.

Two sources, newest first

We do not pick between these or average them into one number.

What we read is the published abstract, not the full paper, so a blank below may still be printed in the paper itself. A fixed rule worked this out from the source’s own fields. Nobody checked this rating by hand.

  • Another kind of study, 2011 · 8 participants

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    Comparative effects of daily and weekly boron supplementation on plasma steroid hormones and proinflammatory cytokines.

    J Trace Elem Med Biol. 2011;25(1):54-8. doi:10.1016/j.jtemb.2010.10.001. PMID:21129941.

    Number reported
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    Lower
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    Not in the abstract
    Who was studied
    Adult
    Compared with
    same subjects on placebo day
    Amount taken
    10 mg/d
    For how long
    7 days
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at Low, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
    1. Starts at Low
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Very lowthe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Imprecision — already at Very low, the lowest rungthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    4. Ends at Very low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    One study, so there was nothing to disagree

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI-reviewed & signed — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and checked that the quote, the numbers, the units and the direction match it. No person read it. The owner authorised the agent to sign the batch with the owner's key, and every build rechecks that signature against these exact bytes.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

  • Another kind of study, 1987 · 12 participants

    Very low certainty, level 1 of 4

    Effect of dietary boron on mineral, estrogen, and testosterone metabolism in postmenopausal women.

    FASEB J. 1987;1(5):394-7. PMID:3678698.

    Number reported
    Not in the abstract
    Which way it went
    Higher
    Likely range
    Not in the abstract
    Source’s own words
    not reported (direction only)
    Who was studied
    Postmenopausal women
    Compared with
    same women on a conventional diet supplying about 0.25 mg boron/day
    Amount taken
    3 mg/d
    For how long
    Not in the abstract
    Disagreement between studies
    Not in the abstract
    Kind of record
    Journal article
    How this rating was reachedstarts at Low, 2 steps down: risk of bias and imprecision
    1. Starts at Low
    2. Risk of bias brought it down to Very lowthe abstract reports no risk-of-bias or quality appraisal, so study limitations cannot be ruled outNot in the abstract
    3. Imprecision — already at Very low, the lowest rungthe abstract reports no confidence interval for the estimateNot in the abstract
    4. Ends at Very low2 steps down.
    Checked, nothing to step it down for
    indirectness
    Inconsistency
    One study, so there was nothing to disagree

    Imprecision stops at the first check that applies; others may apply too.

    AI-reviewed & signed — an AI agent re-read this finding against the saved source and checked that the quote, the numbers, the units and the direction match it. No person read it. The owner authorised the agent to sign the batch with the owner's key, and every build rechecks that signature against these exact bytes.

    Read the abstract on PubMed

What is still missing from these readings

  • None gives a number at all, only which way it went.
  • Two give no likely range, so how precise those numbers are is unknown.
  • For how long — One of Two readings: Not in the abstract.

Something nobody wrote down is never a zero and never a guess.

Still to read for Boron

Six of the 15 things on our list for Boron have no reading here yet:

  • Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (ESR)
  • Lactate Dehydrogenase (LDH)
  • Phosphate (Inorganic Phosphorus)
  • Respiratory rate
  • Serum magnesium
  • White blood cell count

Still to read means nobody here has got to it, not that it was tried and did nothing or that no research exists. A pairing on no list is not a gap: we never set out to read it.

Read next

This is a library, not advice. No recommendation, no dose, no diagnosis, no ranking. We never ask about your symptoms, and nothing here is tailored to you.