Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26493646›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cancer2015

Functional and genetic deconstruction of the cellular origin in liver cancer.

Jens U Marquardt, Jesper B Andersen, Snorri S Thorgeirsson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 175 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
175citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
14.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

175 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 314 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article

115 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 at 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Jens U MarquardtDepartment of Medicine I, Johannes Gutenberg University, Langenbeckstrasse 1, 55131 Mainz, Germany.
Jesper B AndersenBiotech Research and Innovation Centre (BRIC), University of Copenhagen, Ole Maaløes Vej 5, 2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark.
Snorri S ThorgeirssonLaboratory of Experimental Carcinogenesis, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, USA.
Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz · DENational Institutes of Health · USUniversity of Copenhagen · DK

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the past decade, research on primary liver cancers has particularly highlighted the uncommon plasticity of differentiated parenchymal liver cells (that is, hepatocytes and cholangiocytes (also known as biliary epithelial cells)), the role of liver progenitor cells in malignant transformation, the importance of the tumour microenvironment and the molecular complexity of liver tumours. Whereas other reviews have focused on the landscape of genetic alterations that promote development and progression of primary liver cancers and the role of the tumour microenvironment, the crucial importance of the cellular origin of liver cancer has been much less explored. Therefore, in this Review, we emphasize the importance and complexity of the cellular origin in tumour initiation and progression, and attempt to integrate this aspect with recent discoveries in tumour genomics and the contribution of the disrupted hepatic microenvironment to liver carcinogenesis.

Indexed as

Cell DifferentiationTumor MicroenvironmentAnimalsHumansLiver Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID26493646
OpenAlexW2173632235

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.