Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20179714›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2010

Dissecting cancer through mathematics: from the cell to the animal model.

Helen M Byrne

Abstract readHistorical ArticleReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 161 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
161citing 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

161 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 75 Years of Mathematical Oncology.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Modeling tumors as species-rich ecological communities.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Treatment of evolving cancers will require dynamic decision support.Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology · 2023
    Review

101 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Helen M ByrneSchool of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK. Helen.byrne@nottingham.ac.uk

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This Timeline article charts progress in mathematical modelling of cancer over the past 50 years, highlighting the different theoretical approaches that have been used to dissect the disease and the insights that have arisen. Although most of this research was conducted with little involvement from experimentalists or clinicians, there are signs that the tide is turning and that increasing numbers of those involved in cancer research and mathematical modellers are recognizing that by working together they might more rapidly advance our understanding of cancer and improve its treatment.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalHistory, 20th CenturyHistory, 21st CenturyHumansModels, BiologicalNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID20179714

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.