Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25528755›Full record

ArticleJournal of the National Cancer Institute2015

A cancer theory kerfuffle can lead to new lines of research.

Stuart G Baker

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
47citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
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

47 citing papers in PubMed, 108 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Epigenetic Regulation in Drosophila Tumor Models.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2025
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. The cancer puzzle: Welcome to organicism.Progress in biophysics and molecular biology · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Stuart G Baker

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The standard viewpoint that cancer is a genetic disease is often stated as a fact rather than a theory. By not acknowledging that it is a theory, namely the Somatic Mutation Theory (SMT), researchers are limiting their progress. An attractive alternative to SMT is the tissue organization field theory (TOFT), which is summarized as "development gone awry." To initiate a kerfuffle, I discuss the interpretation of various results under both TOFT and SMT, including recurrent mutations, hereditary cancers, induction of tumors in transgenic experiments, remission of tumors following the inhibition of enzymes activated by mutated genes, nongenotoxic carcinogens, denervation experiments, foreign-body carcinogenesis, transplantation experiments, and tumors with zero mutations. Thinking in terms of TOFT can spur new lines of research; examples are given related to the early detection of cancer.

Indexed as

Genetic TechniquesMutationAnimalsAnimals, Genetically ModifiedCarcinogenesisCarcinogensCell Transformation, NeoplasticDenervationDNA, NeoplasmEnzyme InhibitorsForeign BodiesHumansInduction ChemotherapyNeoplasmsNeoplasm TransplantationResearchCarcinogensDNA, NeoplasmEnzyme Inhibitors

Identifiers

PMID25528755
PMCPMC4326310
OpenAlexW2143754687

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.