ReviewBiochimica et biophysica acta2013
Study human pancreatic cancer in mice: how close are they?
Review in Biochimica et biophysica acta, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reduced-order modeling of solute transport within physiologically realistic solid tumor microenvironment.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Regulated cell death in cancer: Mechanisms, crosstalk, and opportunities for therapy.Cancer letters · 2025Review
- REDUCED-ORDER MODELING OF SOLUTE TRANSPORT WITHIN PHYSIOLOGICALLY REALISTIC SOLID TUMOR MICROENVIRONMENT.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Development of a multiphase perfusion model for biomimetic reduced-order dense tumors.Experimental and computational multiphase flow · 2023Article
- Lactobacillus Attenuate the Progression of Pancreatic Cancer Promoted by Porphyromonas Gingivalis inCancers · 2020Article
- Article
- Intravoxel incoherent motion analysis of abdominal organs: computation of reference parameters in a large cohort of C57Bl/6 mice and correlation to microvessel density.Magma (New York, N.Y.) · 2016Article
- GEMMs as preclinical models for testing pancreatic cancer therapies.Disease models & mechanisms · 2015Review
- Real-time assessment of tissue hypoxia in vivo with combined photoacoustics and high-frequency ultrasound.Theranostics · 2014Article
- Monitoring pancreatic carcinogenesis by the molecular imaging of cathepsin E in vivo using confocal laser endomicroscopy.PloS one · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer is the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths and is characterized by dismal prognosis. Xenograft and genetically engineered mouse (GEM) models have recapitulated critical elements of human pancreatic cancer, providing useful tools to probe the underlying cause of cancer etiology. In this review, we provide a brief description of the common genetic lesions that occur during the development of pancreatic cancer. Next, we describe the strengths and weaknesses of these two models and highlight key discoveries each has made. Although the relative merits of GEM and xenograft pancreatic cancer mouse models are subject to debate, both systems have and will continue to yield essential insights in understanding pancreatic cancer etiology. This information is critical for the development of new methods to screen, treat, and prevent pancreatic cancer.
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.