ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2019
Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Translational Research in Oncology.
Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Magnetic Resonance Imaging as a Tool for Monitoring Intratibial Growth of Experimental Prostate Cancer Metastases in Mice.Methods and protocols · 2023Article
- Monitoring longitudinal disease progression in a novel murine Kit tumor model using high-field MRI.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- A literature review on the imaging methods for breast cancer.International journal of physiology, pathophysiology and pharmacology · 2022Review
- Preclinical Models: Boosting Synergies for Improved Translation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The translation of results from the preclinical to the clinical setting is often anything other than straightforward. Indeed, ideas and even very intriguing results obtained at all levels of preclinical research, i.e., in vitro, on animal models, or even in clinical trials, often require much effort to validate, and sometimes, even useful data are lost or are demonstrated to be inapplicable in the clinic. In vivo, small-animal, preclinical imaging uses almost the same technologies in terms of hardware and software settings as for human patients, and hence, might result in a more rapid translation. In this perspective, magnetic resonance imaging might be the most translatable technique, since only in rare cases does it require the use of contrast agents, and when not, sequences developed in the lab can be readily applied to patients, thanks to their non-invasiveness. The wide range of sequences can give much useful information on the anatomy and pathophysiology of oncologic lesions in different body districts. This review aims to underline the versatility of this imaging technique and its various approaches, reporting the latest preclinical studies on thyroid, breast, and prostate cancers, both on small laboratory animals and on human patients, according to our previous and ongoing research lines.
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.