Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30479381›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Genetics2019

Clinical epigenetics: seizing opportunities for translation.

María Berdasco, Manel Esteller

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Genetics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 260 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
260citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

260 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Epigenetic editing: from concept to clinic.Nature reviews. Drug discovery · 2026
    Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

200 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

María BerdascoCancer Epigenetics and Biology Program (PEBC), Bellvitge Biomedical Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. mberdasco@idibell.cat.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6750-0400
Manel EstellerCancer Epigenetics and Biology Program (PEBC), Bellvitge Biomedical Biomedical Research Institute (IDIBELL), Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. mesteller@idibell.cat.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4490-6093

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Biomarker discovery and validation are necessary for improving the prediction of clinical outcomes and patient monitoring. Despite considerable interest in biomarker discovery and development, improvements in the range and quality of biomarkers are still needed. The main challenge is how to integrate preclinical data to obtain a reliable biomarker that can be measured with acceptable costs in routine clinical practice. Epigenetic alterations are already being incorporated as valuable candidates in the biomarker field. Furthermore, their reversible nature offers a promising opportunity to ameliorate disease symptoms by using epigenetic-based therapy. Thus, beyond helping to understand disease biology, clinical epigenetics is being incorporated into patient management in oncology, as well as being explored for clinical applicability for other human pathologies such as neurological and infectious diseases and immune system disorders.

Indexed as

Epigenesis, GeneticEpigenomicsImmune System DiseasesInfectionsNervous System DiseasesBiomedical ResearchHumansPrecision Medicine

Identifiers

PMID30479381

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.