Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18432250›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2008

The Mouse Tumor Biology database.

Debra M Krupke, Dale A Begley, John P Sundberg, Carol J Bult, Janan T Eppig

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing 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

45 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Genetic determinants of fibro-osseous lesions in aged inbred mice.Experimental and molecular pathology · 2016
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Publishing and sharing multi-dimensional image data with OMERO.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2015
    Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

Debra M KrupkeJackson Laboratory, Mouse Tumour Biology Database, 600 Main Street, Bar Harbor, Maine 04609, USA. dmk@informatics.jax.org
Dale A Begley
John P Sundberg
Carol J Bult
Janan T Eppig

Funding

Mouse Models of Human Cancer DatabaseR01CA089713 · NCI · JACKSON LABORATORY · PI BULT, CAROL J · 2002 to 2025
$17.5M
NCI NIH HHS CA089713NCI NIH HHS R01 CA089713
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The laboratory mouse has long been an important tool in the study of the biology and genetics of human cancer. With the advent of genetic engineering techniques, DNA microarray analyses, tissue arrays and other large-scale, high-throughput data generating methods, the amount of data available for mouse models of cancer is growing exponentially. Tools to integrate, locate and visualize these data are crucial to aid researchers in their investigations. The Mouse Tumor Biology database (http://tumor.informatics.jax.org) seeks to address that need.

Indexed as

Databases as TopicDisease Models, AnimalNeoplasms, ExperimentalAnimalsGenes, p16HumansMiceQuantitative Trait Loci

Identifiers

PMID18432250
PMCPMC2574871

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.