Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23990574›Full record

ArticleStem cells translational medicine2013

The DISCUSS Project: induced pluripotent stem cell lines from previously collected research biospecimens and informed consent: points to consider.

Geoffrey P Lomax, Sara Chandros Hull, Justin Lowenthal, Mahendra Rao, Rosario Isasi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stem cells translational medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Need for DISCUSS(ion).Stem cells translational medicine · 2015
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Ethical issues in stem cell research and therapy.Stem cell research & therapy · 2014
    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

5 authors.

Geoffrey P LomaxCalifornia Institute for Regenerative Medicine, San Francisco, California, USA.
Sara Chandros Hull
Justin Lowenthal
Mahendra Rao
Rosario Isasi

Funding

NHGRI/DIR Bioethics CoreZIDHG200347 · NHGRI · NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH INSTITUTE · PI BERKMAN, BENJAMIN · 2010 to 2025
$15.5M
The Laboratory of Stem Cell BiologyZIAAR041193 · NIAMS · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTHRITIS AND MUSCULOSKELETAL AND SKIN DISEASES · PI RAO, MAHENDRA · 2011 to 2014
$3.7M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human somatic cell reprogramming is a leading technology for accelerating disease modeling and drug discovery. Research organizations are sponsoring initiatives to create libraries of induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) lines for broad distribution and application. Donor informed consent plays a critical role in supporting the ethical conduct of iPSC research. To date, our organizations have focused on informed consent considerations for somatic cell collection intended specifically for iPSC derivation and distribution. This article considers how somatic cells obtained under general (biomedical) research protocols can be used for iPSC derivation. We present draft Points to Consider regarding the use of human somatic cells for iPSC research. Our goal is to initiate a process designed to develop consensus for the use of previously collected specimens for iPSC research. We anticipate publishing final considerations in early 2014.

Indexed as

Induced Pluripotent Stem CellsInformed ConsentBiological Specimen BanksCell LineHumans

Identifiers

PMID23990574
PMCPMC3785257

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.