ReviewPLoS computational biology2016
Computational Cancer Biology: An Evolutionary Perspective.
Review in PLoS computational biology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed.
- Facilitation of Tumor Stroma-Targeted Therapy: Model Difficulty and Co-Culture Organoid Method.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Integrative spatial and genomic analysis of tumor heterogeneity with Tumoroscope.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Toward a systems-level probing of tumor clonality.iScience · 2023Review
- EvAM-Tools: tools for evolutionary accumulation and cancer progression models.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Semi-deconvolution of bulk and single-cell RNA-seq data with application to metastatic progression in breast cancer.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- CONET: copy number event tree model of evolutionary tumor history for single-cell data.Genome biology · 2022Article
- Tumor heterogeneity assessed by sequencing and fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH) data.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- Conditional prediction of consecutive tumor evolution using cancer progression models: What genotype comes next?PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Statistical tests for intra-tumour clonal co-occurrence and exclusivity.PLoS computational biology · 2021Article
- Long non-coding RNAs and their potential impact on diagnosis, prognosis, and therapy in prostate cancer: racial, ethnic, and geographical considerations.Expert review of molecular diagnostics · 2021Review
- Implications of prognosis-associated genes in pancreatic tumor metastasis: lessons from global studies in bioinformatics.Cancer metastasis reviews · 2021Review
- Article
- Inferring tumor progression in large datasets.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Clonal evolution driven by superdriver mutations.BMC evolutionary biology · 2020Article
- Robust and accurate deconvolution of tumor populations uncovers evolutionary mechanisms of breast cancer metastasis.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2020Article
- Tumour heterogeneity and the evolutionary trade-offs of cancer.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2020Review
- Molecular Pap Smear: Validation of HPV Genotype and Host Methylation Profiles ofFrontiers in microbiology · 2020Article
- Cancer biology as revealed by the research autopsy.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2019Review
- Fine-grained simulations of the microenvironment of vascularized tumours.Scientific reports · 2019Article
- Every which way? On predicting tumor evolution using cancer progression models.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.