ReviewSeminars in cell & developmental biology2017
Building dialogues between clinical and biomedical research through cross-species collaborations.
Review in Seminars in cell & developmental biology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Animal models in biomedical research: Relevance ofHeliyon · 2025Review
- Review
- ConVarT: a search engine for matching human genetic variants with variants from non-human species.Nucleic acids research · 2022Article
- Intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorders 'on the fly': insights fromDisease models & mechanisms · 2019Review
- Model organism data evolving in support of translational medicine.Lab animal · 2018Review
- Reverse-engineering organogenesis through feedback loops between model systems.Current opinion in biotechnology · 2018Review
- Scaling up to studyCancer cell & microenvironment · 2018Article
- Review
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
Abstract
Today, biomedical science is equipped with an impressive array of technologies and genetic resources that bolster our basic understanding of fundamental biology and enhance the practice of modern medicine by providing clinicians with a diverse toolkit to diagnose, prognosticate, and treat a plethora of conditions. Many significant advances in our understanding of disease mechanisms and therapeutic interventions have arisen from fruitful dialogues between clinicians and biomedical research scientists. However, the increasingly specialized scientific and medical disciplines, globalization of science and technology, and complex datasets often hinder the development of effective interdisciplinary collaborations between clinical medicine and biomedical research. The goal of this review is to provide examples of diverse strategies to enhance communication and collaboration across diverse disciplines. First, we discuss examples of efforts to foster interdisciplinary collaborations at institutional and multi-institutional levels. Second, we explore resources and tools for clinicians and research scientists to facilitate effective bi-directional dialogues. Third, we use our experiences in neurobiology and human genetics to highlight how communication between clinical medicine and biomedical research lead to effective implementation of cross-species model organism approaches to uncover the biological underpinnings of health and disease.
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.