ReviewAPL bioengineering2020
Review in APL bioengineering, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital twin for sex-specific identification of class III antiarrhythmic drugs based on in vitro measurements, computer models, and machine learning tools.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- A comprehensive review of 20 years of progress in nonclinical QT evaluation and proarrhythmic assessment.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2025Review
- Fast and accurate prediction of drug induced proarrhythmic risk with sex specific cardiac emulators.NPJ digital medicine · 2024Article
- Uncertainty assessment of proarrhythmia predictions derived from multi-level in silico models.Archives of toxicology · 2023Article
- Machine learning approach to evaluate TdP risk of drugs using cardiac electrophysiological model including inter-individual variability.Frontiers in physiology · 2023Article
- Brain physiome: A concept bridgingBioactive materials · 2022Review
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Safety evaluation of drugs requires examination of the risk of generating Torsade de Pointes (TdP) because it can lead to sudden cardiac death. Until recently, the QT interval in the electrocardiogram (ECG) has been used in the evaluation of TdP risk because the QT interval is known to be associated with the development of TdP. Although TdP risk evaluation based on QT interval has been successful in removing drugs with TdP risk from the market, some safe drugs may have also been affected due to the low specificity of QT interval-based evaluation. For more accurate evaluation of drug safety, the comprehensive
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.