ReviewF1000Research2017
Recent Advances in Understanding Cholangiocarcinoma.
Review in F1000Research, 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interplay of RNA mBiomedicines · 2024Article
- Article
- DCLK1, a Putative Stem Cell Marker in Human Cholangiocarcinoma.Hepatology (Baltimore, Md.) · 2021Article
- Challenges and Opportunities for Treating Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.Hepatic medicine : evidence and research · 2021Review
- Epidermal growth factor-like domain multiple 7 (EGFL7): Expression and possible effect on biliary epithelium growth in cholangiocarcinoma.European journal of histochemistry : EJH · 2018Article
- Periostin and mesothelin: Potential predictors of malignant progression in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Hepatology communications · 2018Article
- Link Between m6A Modification and Cancers.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2018Review
- MSI2 knockdown represses extrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma growth and invasion by inhibiting epithelial-mesenchymal transition.OncoTargets and therapy · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Cholangiocarcinoma (CCA) is an aggressive malignancy that arises from damaged epithelial cells, cholangiocytes, and possibly de-differentiated hepatocytes. CCA has a poor overall survival rate and limited therapeutic options. Based on this data, it is imperative that new diagnostic and therapeutic interventions be developed. Recent work has attempted to understand the pathological mechanisms driving CCA progression. Specifically, recent publications have delved into the role of cancer stem cells (CSCs), mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs), and microRNAs (miRNAs) during CCA pathology. CSCs are a specific subset of cells within the tumor environment that are derived from a cell with stem-like properties and have been shown to influence recurrence and chemoresistance during CCA. MSCs are known for their anti-inflammatory activity and have been postulated to influence malignancy during CCA, but little is known about their exact functions. miRNAs exert various functions via gene regulation at both the transcriptional and the translational levels, giving miRNAs diverse roles in CCA progression. Additionally, current miRNA-based therapeutic approaches are in clinical trials for various liver diseases, giving hope for similar approaches for CCA. However, the interactions among these three factors in the context of CCA are unknown. In this review, we focus on recently published data (within the last 3 years) that discuss the role of CSCs, MSCs, and miRNAs and their possible interactions during CCA pathogenesis.
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.