Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32595946›Full record

ReviewF1000Research2020

Cell plasticity in cancer cell populations.

Shensi Shen, Jean Clairambault

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in F1000Research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Glioblastoma research on zebrafish xenograft models: a systematic review.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2024
    Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. RANBP9 and RANBP10 cooperate in regulating non-small cell lung cancer proliferation.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2025
    Article
  7. Live-cell omics with Raman spectroscopy.Microscopy (Oxford, England) · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

2 authors.

Shensi ShenInserm U981, Institut Gustave Roussy, Université Paris-Saclay, Villejuif, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5087-8220
Jean ClairambaultSorbonne Université, CNRS, Université de Paris, Laboratoire Jacques-Louis Lions (LJLL), & Inria Mamba team, Paris, France.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this review, we propose a recension of biological observations on plasticity in cancer cell populations and discuss theoretical considerations about their mechanisms.

Indexed as

Cell PlasticityNeoplasmsCancerModellingPlasticity

Identifiers

PMID32595946
PMCPMC7309415

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.