aromatase inhibitors combined with gonadotropin releasing hormone analogue for endometriosis
A systematic review reports that 6 months of aromatase inhibitors plus a GnRH analogue after surgery reduces endometriosis recurrence risk compared with GnRH analogue alone.
Hypothesized mechanism
Adding aromatase inhibitors to GnRH analogue further suppresses local and peripheral estrogen production, reducing residual endometriotic lesion stimulation and recurrence.
This is the model’s proposed mechanism from the sources on file, not a demonstrated causal pathway. How well the published record supports it is reflected in the rigor and plausibility dimensions of the score, and traced to the verbatim sources at the foot of the page.
How the score was reached, for this pair
The composite score is the sum of five dimensions, each scored 0 to 2 by the model from the evidence on file. Below is the sub-score this specific pair received on each, with what that dimension measures. It scored 7 of 10 overall, a moderate reading, from a direct rated moderate in strength.
The model’s overall reasoning for this pair is the summary at the top of the page, and the mechanism it proposed is in the section above.
Scored for women. Evidence generated in women (female population, ~100% female). (band F1, ×1.00).
Corroboration
The evidence derives from a single systematic review (one synthesis), which per scoring rules counts as 1, not independent replication. No additional independent studies are cited in the claims.
Rigor
The source is a systematic review, which qualifies as the high-rigor tier. The claim describes a comparative postsurgical regimen evaluating recurrence reduction.
Specificity
The claim names both the intervention (AIs combined with GnRH analogue) and the condition (endometriosis/recurrence) directly. The comparison to GnRH analogue alone is explicit.
Plausibility
The combination plausibly reduces recurrence by suppressing estrogen via both ovarian and local aromatase inhibition, but the claim only asserts an outcome without detailing a mechanism. Thus mechanism is plausible but not evidenced in the quote.
Consistency
Only a single systematic review is presented, so direction cannot be cross-checked against independent sources. Per the rule, a single source is scored 1 and not penalized.
Layers not covered for this pair
Not covered for this pair. This layer holds documented sex-specific pharmacokinetics for a limited set of drugs, and this compound is not among them yet. A blank here means the drug is not covered by the layer, not that no sex difference exists.
More on the sex-specific pharmacokinetics layer and its sources →Not covered for this pair. The cycle-phase layer is seeded for the strongest-evidence cases so far (PMDD), and this pair is not among them yet. A blank here means the pair is not covered by the layer, not that the effect was found to be phase-independent.
More on the cycle-phase layer and its sources →Source evidence · what the pipeline ingested
These are the sources the pipeline ingested to detect and score this signal, the published literature the model actually read, each tagged by study type. Where the model combined findings the claim is marked as a synthesis (S), and where the literature disagrees the contradiction is shown (!).
Every source below belongs to this signal’s evidence arm, Direct research. Whel reads each drug-condition pair through four such arms, each held to its own inclusion bar; a signal is surfaced through one of them.
- 1the administration of AIs combined with gonadotropin releasing hormone analogue for 6 months reduces the risk of endometriosis recurrence when compared with gonadotropin releasing hormone analogue alone PubMed · PMID 21693038 ↗
These are the verbatim sources the pipeline surfaced and read; they may not be the full published record for a pair, and the score reflects the strength and agreement of the evidence rather than its volume. The strength of these source types is what the rigor dimension of the score reads off. MATRIX, sex-specific pharmacokinetics, and cycle phase are separate layers the pipeline does not ingest, external cross-references reported beside the score, and they link to their own sources in their sections above.
The primary sources and pipelines this evidence is drawn from →