Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25069490›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2014

Investigating human disease using stem cell models.

Jared L Sterneckert, Peter Reinhardt, Hans R Schöler

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 142 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
142citing 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

142 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Ginsenosides on stem cells fate specification-a novel perspective.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2023
    Review
  17. Stem Cell-Based Therapeutic Approaches in Genetic Diseases.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2023
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Generation of aCells · 2022
    Article

82 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.

Jared L SterneckertDepartment of Cell and Developmental Biology, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Röntgenstrasse 20, 48149 Münster, Germany.
Peter ReinhardtDepartment of Cell and Developmental Biology, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Röntgenstrasse 20, 48149 Münster, Germany.
Hans R SchölerDepartment of Cell and Developmental Biology, Max Planck Institute for Molecular Biomedicine, Röntgenstrasse 20, 48149 Münster, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Tractable and accurate disease models are essential for understanding disease pathogenesis and for developing new therapeutics. As stem cells are capable of self-renewal and differentiation, they are ideally suited both for generating these models and for obtaining the large quantities of cells required for drug development and transplantation therapies. Although proof of principle for the use of adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells in disease modelling has been established, induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs) have demonstrated the greatest utility for modelling human diseases. Furthermore, combining gene editing with iPSCs enables the generation of models of genetically complex disorders.

Indexed as

Cell DifferentiationDiseaseGenome, HumanHumansInduced Pluripotent Stem CellsMutationRNA Editing

Identifiers

PMID25069490

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.