Each page covers one condition properly: what it actually is and what it feels like, what causes it, how common it really is and in whom, and how it's diagnosed — followed by the specific variants with a replicated link to it, and, where the research supports it, how genetics can change the way a medicine behaves.
Written in two registers so one page serves both readers: plain language first, then a clinical detail section with the precise terminology, effect sizes and diagnostic thresholds. Every claim is sourced from freely-available published research and cited on the page, so you can check us — or hand the page to your doctor. 385 conditions so far, growing continuously, and free to reuse with attribution (CC BY 4.0).
4 results in Reproductive
Anal and Rectal Polyp, as genome-wide studies have reported it: 6 positions from 1 study, the largest recording 4,766 cases and 607,628 controls (African American or Afro-Caribbean ancestry, European ancestry, Hispanic or Latin American ancestry). Every figure comes from the studies themselves, gathered by code from the GWAS Catalog and updated as the records grow.
Read more → ReproductivePelvic Organ Prolapse, as genome-wide studies have reported it: 8 positions from 2 studies, the largest recording 28,857 cases and 622,916 controls (Japanese ancestry, European ancestry). Built from the GWAS Catalog's records and rebuilt when a new position is reported; the figures are the studies'.
Read more → ReproductiveUterine and cervical polyps had never had a genome-wide study until 2025 — the first one, in nearly 37,000 women, found 16 risk loci and a genetic overlap with endometrial cancer and fibroids.
Read more → ReproductiveA chronic disease affecting roughly 1 in 10 women, whose genetics were mapped in one of the largest studies of its kind — 80 risk regions, and a first look at which existing drugs might be repurposed against it.
Read more →One diagnosed condition or measurable trait covered properly: what it actually is, what causes it, how common it is, how it is diagnosed, and the specific variants with a replicated link to it — every claim sourced from published research.
No. Every page here is informational, not a diagnosis. A result should be discussed with a doctor or a licensed genetic counselor, never acted on alone.
Because they are not disorders. Height, ABO blood group and a handful of others describe a measurable characteristic with nothing to diagnose — "Trait" says so plainly instead of implying a disease that is not one.
Only after a replicated association in published research, verified against the primary study rather than a gene name or a marketing claim — the same discipline the variant pages themselves follow.