ReviewCancers2019
Genomic Perspective on Mouse Liver Cancer Models.
Review in Cancers, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Volumetric CT Assessment of In Situ Induced Hepatic Lesions in a Transgenic Swine Model.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- Exploring the JAK/STAT Signaling Pathway in Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Unraveling Signaling Complexity and Therapeutic Implications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- Advancements in the Alcohol-Associated Liver Disease Model.Biomolecules · 2022Review
- Animal Models of Hepatocellular Carcinoma for Local-Regional Intraarterial Therapies.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2022Review
- Mouse characteristics that affect establishing xenografts from hepatocellular carcinoma patient biopsies in the United States.Cancer medicine · 2022Article
- Mir-21 Suppression Promotes Mouse Hepatocarcinogenesis.Cancers · 2021Article
- An Overview of the Genomic Characterization of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2021Review
- Molecular subtyping of hepatocellular carcinoma: A step toward precision medicine.Cancer communications (London, England) · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Selecting the most appropriate mouse model that best recapitulates human hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) allows translation of preclinical mouse studies into clinical studies. In the era of cancer genomics, comprehensive and integrative analysis of the human HCC genome has allowed categorization of HCC according to molecular subtypes. Despite the variety of mouse models that are available for preclinical research, there is a lack of evidence for mouse models that closely resemble human HCC. Therefore, it is necessary to identify the accurate mouse models that represent human HCC based on molecular subtype as well as histologic aggressiveness. In this review, we summarize the mouse models integrated with human HCC genomic data to provide information regarding the models that recapitulates the distinct aspect of HCC biology and prognosis based on molecular subtypes.
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.