Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32170841›Full record

ArticlePhysiological reports2020

Sex differences in skeletal muscle alterations in a model of colorectal cancer.

Angela C Greenman, Dawn M Albrecht, Richard B Halberg, Gary M Diffee

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Physiological reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Sexual dimorphisms in skeletal muscle: current concepts and research horizons.Journal of applied physiology (Bethesda, Md. : 1985) · 2024
    Review
  3. Exploring heterogeneity: a dive into preclinical models of cancer cachexia.American journal of physiology. Cell physiology · 2024
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Sex Differences in Inflammation and Muscle Wasting in Aging and Disease.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Biomarkers for Cancer Cachexia: A Mini Review.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  13. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Angela C GreenmanBalke Biodynamics Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0948-8885
Dawn M AlbrechtMcArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Richard B HalbergMcArdle Laboratory for Cancer Research, Department of Oncology, School of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
Gary M DiffeeBalke Biodynamics Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer cachexia is the loss of lean muscle mass with or without loss of fat mass that is often highlighted by a progressive loss of skeletal muscle mass and function. The mechanisms behind the cachexia-related loss of skeletal muscle are poorly understood, including cachexia-related muscle functional impairments. Existing models have revealed some potential mechanisms, but appear limited to how the cancer develops and the type of tumors that form. We studied the C57BL6/J (B6) Apc

Indexed as

AnimalsCachexiaColorectal NeoplasmsDisease Models, AnimalFemaleMaleMice, Inbred C57BLMice, TransgenicMuscle, SkeletalSex CharacteristicsCancer cachexiafatigabilitymuscle functionsex differences

Identifiers

PMID32170841
PMCPMC7070158
OpenAlexW3011117857

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.