Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29649981›Full record

ReviewBMC cancer2018

In silico cancer research towards 3R.

Claire Jean-Quartier, Fleur Jeanquartier, Igor Jurisica, Andreas Holzinger

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

51 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Infection and immunity · 2025
    Article
  6. Study the impact ofCytotechnology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. FromFrontiers in molecular biosciences · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Effect of AddingFoods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

4 authors.

Claire Jean-QuartierHolzinger Group, Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Fleur JeanquartierHolzinger Group, Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria. fleur.jeanquartier@tugraz.at.ORCID 0000-0001-8607-9255
Igor JurisicaKrembil Research Institute, University Health Network; Depts. of Medical Bioph. and Comp. Sci., University of Toronto; Institute of Neuroimmunology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Toronto, Canada.
Andreas HolzingerHolzinger Group, Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundImproving our understanding of cancer and other complex diseases requires integrating diverse data sets and algorithms. Intertwining in vivo and in vitro data and in silico models are paramount to overcome intrinsic difficulties given by data complexity. Importantly, this approach also helps to uncover underlying molecular mechanisms. Over the years, research has introduced multiple biochemical and computational methods to study the disease, many of which require animal experiments. However, modeling systems and the comparison of cellular processes in both eukaryotes and prokaryotes help to understand specific aspects of uncontrolled cell growth, eventually leading to improved planning of future experiments. According to the principles for humane techniques milestones in alternative animal testing involve in vitro methods such as cell-based models and microfluidic chips, as well as clinical tests of microdosing and imaging. Up-to-date, the range of alternative methods has expanded towards computational approaches, based on the use of information from past in vitro and in vivo experiments. In fact, in silico techniques are often underrated but can be vital to understanding fundamental processes in cancer. They can rival accuracy of biological assays, and they can provide essential focus and direction to reduce experimental cost. MAIN BODY: We give an overview on in vivo, in vitro and in silico methods used in cancer research. Common models as cell-lines, xenografts, or genetically modified rodents reflect relevant pathological processes to a different degree, but can not replicate the full spectrum of human disease. There is an increasing importance of computational biology, advancing from the task of assisting biological analysis with network biology approaches as the basis for understanding a cell's functional organization up to model building for predictive systems.

conclusionUnderlining and extending the in silico approach with respect to the 3Rs for replacement, reduction and refinement will lead cancer research towards efficient and effective precision medicine. Therefore, we suggest refined translational models and testing methods based on integrative analyses and the incorporation of computational biology within cancer research.

Indexed as

Computational BiologyModels, BiologicalAnimalsComputer SimulationDisease Models, AnimalHumansNeoplasmsPrecision MedicineResearch3RsAlternative animal experimentationCancer bioinformaticsCancer researchComputational biologyEx vivo systemsIn silico modelingIntegrative analysisIn vitro methodsIn vivo techniquesTumor growth

Identifiers

PMID29649981
PMCPMC5897933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.