ArticleCell2019
A Watershed Finding for Heart Regeneration.
Article in Cell, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Molecular regulation of myocardial proliferation and regeneration.Cell regeneration (London, England) · 2021Review
- Modulation of SERCA2a expression and function by ultrasound-guided myocardial gene transfection.Experimental and therapeutic medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The adult mammalian heart is minimally regenerative after injury, whereas neonatal hearts fully recover even after major damage. New work from the Red-Horse and Woo labs (Das et al., 2019) shows that collateral artery formation is a key mechanism contributing to successful regeneration in newborn mice and provides insights into how collateral arteries form.
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.