Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29877565›Full record

ReviewThe International journal of developmental biology2018

Lens regeneration: a historical perspective.

M Natalia Vergara, George Tsissios, Katia Del Rio-Tsonis

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The International journal of developmental biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Hallmarks of regeneration.Cell stem cell · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Lens regenerationiScience · 2023
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Modeling ocular lens disease in Xenopus.Developmental dynamics : an official publication of the American Association of Anatomists · 2020
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Characterizing the lens regeneration process in Pleurodeles waltl.Differentiation; research in biological diversity
    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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

M Natalia VergaraDepartment of Ophthalmology, University of Colorado Denver School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, USA.
George Tsissios
Katia Del Rio-Tsonis
Miami University · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · US

Funding

On Determinants of Lens RegenerationR01EY027801 · NEI · MIAMI UNIVERSITY OXFORD · PI DEL RIO-TSONIS, KATIA · 2017 to 2019
$1.1M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY027801
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The idea of regenerating injured body parts has captivated human imagination for centuries, and the topic still remains an area of extensive scientific research. This review focuses on the process of lens regeneration: its history, our current knowledge, and the questions that remain unanswered. By highlighting some of the milestones that have shaped our understanding of this phenomenon and the contributions of scientists who have dedicated their lives to investigating these questions, we explore how regeneration enquiry evolved into the science it is today, and how technological advances accelerated our understanding of these remarkable processes.

Indexed as

AnimalsCell ProliferationCell TransdifferentiationDevelopmental BiologyEpithelial CellsHumansLens, CrystallineModels, BiologicalRegeneration

Identifiers

PMID29877565
PMCPMC6378223
OpenAlexW2806407619

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.