ArticleClinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research2011
Identification and elucidation of the biology of adverse events: the challenges of safety assessment and translational medicine.
Article in Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automatic signal extraction, prioritizing and filtering approaches in detecting post-marketing cardiovascular events associated with targeted cancer drugs from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).Journal of biomedical informatics · 2014Article
- Reducing the toxicity of cancer therapy: recognizing needs, taking action.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2012Review
- Adaptive clinical trial designs for simultaneous testing of matched diagnostics and therapeutics.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There has been an explosion of technology-enabled scientific insight into the basic biology of the causes of adverse events. This has been driven, in part, by the development of the various "omics" tools (e.g., genomics, proteomics, and metabolomics) and associated bioinformatics platforms. Meanwhile, for decades, changes in preclinical testing protocols and guidelines have been limited. Preclinical safety testing currently relies heavily on the use of outdated animal models. Application of systems biology methods to evaluation of toxicities in oncology treatments can accelerate the introduction of safe, effective drugs. Systems biology adds insights regarding the causes and mechanisms of adverse effects, provides important and actionable information to help understand the risks and benefits to humans, focuses testing on methods that add value to the safety testing process, and leads to modifications of chemical entities to reduce liabilities during development. Leveraging emerging technologies, such as genomics and proteomics, may make preclinical safety testing more efficient and accurate and lead to better safety decisions. The development of a U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidance document on the use of systems biology in clinical testing would greatly benefit the development of drugs for oncology by communicating the potential application of specific methodologies, providing a framework for qualification and application of systems biology outcomes, and providing insight into the challenges and limitations of systems biology in the regulatory decision-making process.
Indexed as
Identifiers
22046025What 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.