Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19936081›Full record

ArticleGene regulation and systems biology2007

Computational systems biology in cancer: modeling methods and applications.

Wayne Materi, David S Wishart

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Gene regulation and systems biology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing 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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Verifiable biology.Journal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2023
    Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Multi-fractal characterization of bacterial swimming dynamics: a case study on real and simulatedProceedings. Mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences · 2017
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Bioinformatics for cancer immunology and immunotherapy.Cancer immunology, immunotherapy : CII · 2012
    Review
  19. Review
  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

2 authors.

Wayne MateriNational Research Council, National Institute for Nanotechnology (NINT) Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
David S Wishart

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent years it has become clear that carcinogenesis is a complex process, both at the molecular and cellular levels. Understanding the origins, growth and spread of cancer, therefore requires an integrated or system-wide approach. Computational systems biology is an emerging sub-discipline in systems biology that utilizes the wealth of data from genomic, proteomic and metabolomic studies to build computer simulations of intra and intercellular processes. Several useful descriptive and predictive models of the origin, growth and spread of cancers have been developed in an effort to better understand the disease and potential therapeutic approaches. In this review we describe and assess the practical and theoretical underpinnings of commonly-used modeling approaches, including ordinary and partial differential equations, petri nets, cellular automata, agent based models and hybrid systems. A number of computer-based formalisms have been implemented to improve the accessibility of the various approaches to researchers whose primary interest lies outside of model development. We discuss several of these and describe how they have led to novel insights into tumor genesis, growth, apoptosis, vascularization and therapy.

Indexed as

cancercellular automatacomputational systems biologymodelingsimulation

Identifiers

PMID19936081
PMCPMC2759135

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.