Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22954683›Full record

ReviewCancer biology & therapy2012

Patent controversies and court cases: cancer diagnosis, therapy and prevention.

Arsenio M Fialho, Ananda M Chakrabarty

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancer biology & therapy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Current advances in microbial-based cancer therapies.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2023
    Review
  3. Review
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.

Arsenio M FialhoDepartment of Bioengineering, Institute for Biotechnology & Bioengineering, Instituto Superior Tecnico, Lisbon, Portugal.
Ananda M Chakrabarty

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patents are issued essentially by all countries on inventions that are deemed novel, non-obvious, clearly described and of significant utility or industrial application. The only exceptions to patenting an invention are abstract ideas, laws of nature and natural phenomena, although the exceptions vary depending on countries where moral, public order or human rights considerations are also taken into account. Although patent laws are updated over decades, the rapid progress of science creates situations that the patent laws on the book cannot address, leading to contentious legal issues. This is often true for life saving drugs, particularly drugs for cancers or HIV/AIDS, which are expensive and beyond the reach of poor people because of the proprietary positions of these patented drugs. Another contentious issue is the patent eligibility of human genes and mutations that are often thought of nature's contribution to human health and propagation and should be beyond the reach of patentability. In this review, we address some of these current legal issues and their implications for the development of diagnostic methods, therapeutic interventions and even prevention for cancer, a scourge of mankind.

Indexed as

AnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsHumansLegislation, DrugNeoplasmsPatents as TopicAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID22954683
PMCPMC3493429

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.