ReviewAngiogenesis2010
'In vivo' optical approaches to angiogenesis imaging.
Review in Angiogenesis, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Innovative optical imaging strategies for monitoring immunotherapy in the tumor microenvironments.Cancer medicine · 2024Review
- Pharmacokinetic Advantage of ASD Device Promote Drug Absorption through the Epicardium.Pharmaceutical research · 2020Article
- Ultrasound multiple scattering with microbubbles can differentiate between tumor and healthy tissue in vivo.Physics in medicine and biology · 2019Article
- Non-invasive molecular imaging for preclinical cancer therapeutic development.British journal of pharmacology · 2013Review
- Non-invasive imaging for studying anti-angiogenic therapy effects.Thrombosis and haemostasis · 2013Article
- A concise review of magnetic resonance molecular imaging of tumor angiogenesis by targeting integrin αvβ3 with magnetic probes.International journal of nanomedicine · 2013Review
- Distribution and accumulation of Cy5.5-labeled thermally cross-linked superparamagnetic iron oxide nanoparticles in the tissues of ICR mice.Journal of veterinary science · 2013Article
- Bacterial vectors for imaging and cancer gene therapy: a review.Cancer gene therapy · 2012Review
- Tumor angiogenesis phenotyping by nanoparticle-facilitated magnetic resonance and near-infrared fluorescence molecular imaging.Neoplasia (New York, N.Y.) · 2012Article
- In vivo inhibition of c-MYC in myeloid cells impairs tumor-associated macrophage maturation and pro-tumoral activities.PloS one · 2012Article
- Imaging of angiogenesis.Angiogenesis · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, molecular imaging gained significant importance in biomedical research. Optical imaging developed into a modality which enables the visualization and quantification of all kinds of cellular processes and cancerous cell growth in small animals. Novel gene reporter mice and cell lines and the development of targeted and cleavable fluorescent "smart" probes form a powerful imaging toolbox. The development of systems collecting tomographic bioluminescence and fluorescence data enabled even more spatial accuracy and more quantitative measurements. Here we describe various bioluminescent and fluorescent gene reporter models and probes that can be used to specifically image and quantify neovascularization or the angiogenic process itself.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.