Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17280618›Full record

ArticleTheoretical biology & medical modelling2007

Immunostimulation and immunoinhibition of premalignant lesions.

Richmond T Prehn

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Theoretical biology & medical modelling, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. A new kink in an old theory of carcinogenesis.Theoretical biology & medical modelling · 2013
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Biphasic effect of a primary tumor on the growth of secondary tumor implants.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2010
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

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

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Richmond T PrehnDepartment of Pathology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98118, USA. prehn@u.washington.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe immune reaction may be either stimulatory or inhibitory to tumor growth, depending upon the local ratio of immune reactants to tumor cells. HYPOTHESIS: A tumor-stimulatory immune response may be essential for survival of a neoplasm in vivo and for the biological progression from a premalignant lesion to a malignancy. Neither a positive nor a negative correlation between the magnitude of an immune-cell infiltrate and a cancer's prognosis can reveal whether the infiltrate was stimulating or inhibiting to the tumor's growth unless the position on the nonlinear curve that relates tumor growth to the magnitude of the immune reaction is known. DISCUSSION: This hypothesis is discussed in relation to the development of human malignant melanomas and colorectal cancers.

Indexed as

AnimalsColorectal NeoplasmsHumansImmune ToleranceImmunizationMelanomaMicePapillomaPrecancerous ConditionsSkin Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID17280618
PMCPMC1797005

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.