Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24943811›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2014

Imaging preclinical tumour models: improving translational power.

Marion de Jong, Jeroen Essers, Wytske M van Weerden

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 83 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
83citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

83 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Preclinical PET, PET/CT, and PET/MRI.Recent results in cancer research. Fortschritte der Krebsforschung. Progres dans les recherches sur le cancer · 2026
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

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

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

3 authors.

Marion de JongDepartments of Nuclear Medicine and Radiology, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, Room Na-610, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Jeroen EssersDepartments of Genetics (Cancer Genomics Centre), Radiation Oncology and Vascular Surgery, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, P.O Box 2040, 3000CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Wytske M van WeerdenDepartment of Urology, Erasmus MC Rotterdam, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA Rotterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Recent developments and improvements of multimodal imaging methods for use in animal research have substantially strengthened the options of in vivo visualization of cancer-related processes over time. Moreover, technological developments in probe synthesis and labelling have resulted in imaging probes with the potential for basic research, as well as for translational and clinical applications. In addition, more sophisticated cancer models are available to address cancer-related research questions. This Review gives an overview of developments in these three fields, with a focus on imaging approaches in animal cancer models and how these can help the translation of new therapies into the clinic.

Indexed as

Translational Research, BiomedicalAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalHumansMolecular ImagingNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID24943811

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.