Part of a scientific master plan? Paul Ehrlich and the origins of his receptor concept.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

1. How Technical Advances Changed the Concept of Antibodies.Immunological reviews · 2024
   Review
2. Cato Guldberg and Peter Waage, the history of the Law of Mass Action, and its relevance to clinical pharmacology.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2016
   Review
3. The contribution of Paul Ehrlich to histochemistry: a tribute on the occasion of the centenary of his death.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2015
   Article
4. The receptor concept in 3D: from hypothesis and metaphor to GPCR-ligand structures.Neurochemical research · 2014
   Review
5. Stems and standards: social interaction in the search for blood stem cells.Journal of the history of biology · 2010
   Article
6. A binding question: the evolution of the receptor concept.Endeavour · 2009
   Article
7. Historical evolution of the neurotransmission concept.Journal of neural transmission (Vienna, Austria : 1996) · 2009
   Review
8. "You are our only hope": trading metaphorical "magic bullets" for stem cell "superheroes".Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2009
   Article
9. Molecular decoys: antidotes, therapeutics and immunomodulators.Current opinion in biotechnology · 2008
   Review

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

Authors and funding

1 author.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as