Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24060861›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2013

Mechanistic insight into ALK receptor tyrosine kinase in human cancer biology.

Bengt Hallberg, Ruth H Palmer

Erratum issuedAbstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 339 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
339citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–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

339 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Novel, emerging and provisional renal entities: The Genitourinary Pathology Society (GUPS) update on renal neoplasia.Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc · 2021
    Guideline
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. ALK Inhibitor Response in NovelJTO clinical and research reports · 2026
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. OncogenicLung cancer management · 2025
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Lung adenocarcinoma withTranslational lung cancer research · 2025
    Article

279 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Erratum issued
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Bengt HallbergDepartment of Molecular Biology, Building 6L, Umeå University, Umeå S-90187, Sweden.
Ruth H Palmer

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The burgeoning field of anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) in cancer encompasses many cancer types, from very rare cancers to the more prevalent non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The common activation of ALK has led to the use of the ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) crizotinib in a range of patient populations and to the rapid development of second-generation drugs targeting ALK. In this Review, we discuss our current understanding of ALK function in human cancer and the implications for tumour treatment.

Indexed as

Anaplastic Lymphoma KinaseAnimalsAntineoplastic AgentsCaenorhabditis elegans ProteinsCell Transformation, NeoplasticClinical Trials as TopicCrizotinibDrosophila ProteinsDrug Resistance, NeoplasmEnzyme InductionGene Expression Regulation, DevelopmentalGene Expression Regulation, NeoplasticHumansLymphoma, Large-Cell, AnaplasticMiceModels, BiologicalALK protein, humanAlk protein, mouseAnaplastic Lymphoma KinaseAntineoplastic AgentsCaenorhabditis elegans ProteinsCrizotinibDrosophila ProteinsNeoplasm ProteinsOncogene Proteins, FusionProtein-Tyrosine KinasesPyrazolesPyridinesReceptor Protein-Tyrosine KinasesScd-2 protein, C elegansZebrafish Proteins

Identifiers

PMID24060861

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.