Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23488622›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of pharmacology2013

Non-invasive molecular imaging for preclinical cancer therapeutic development.

A C O'Farrell, S D Shnyder, G Marston, P L Coletta, J H Gill

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of pharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing 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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Investigating T Cell Immunity in Cancer: Achievements and Prospects.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Mouse Tumor Models for Advanced Cancer Immunotherapy.International journal of molecular sciences · 2020
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

5 authors.

A C O'FarrellDepartment of Physiology and Medical Physics, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin, Ireland.
S D Shnyder
G Marston
P L Coletta
J H Gill

Funding

Cancer Research UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Molecular and non-invasive imaging are rapidly emerging fields in preclinical cancer drug discovery. This is driven by the need to develop more efficacious and safer treatments, the advent of molecular-targeted therapeutics, and the requirements to reduce and refine current preclinical in vivo models. Such bioimaging strategies include MRI, PET, single positron emission computed tomography, ultrasound, and optical approaches such as bioluminescence and fluorescence imaging. These molecular imaging modalities have several advantages over traditional screening methods, not least the ability to quantitatively monitor pharmacodynamic changes at the cellular and molecular level in living animals non-invasively in real time. This review aims to provide an overview of non-invasive molecular imaging techniques, highlighting the strengths, limitations and versatility of these approaches in preclinical cancer drug discovery and development.

Indexed as

Drug Evaluation, PreclinicalMolecular ImagingAnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsDrugs, InvestigationalHumansMolecular Targeted TherapyMultimodal ImagingNeoplasm MetastasisNeoplasms, ExperimentalTumor BurdenWhole Body ImagingAntineoplastic AgentsDrugs, Investigational

Identifiers

PMID23488622
PMCPMC3687654

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.