ReviewCurrent opinion in gastroenterology2020
Precision medicine for pancreatic diseases.
Review in Current opinion in gastroenterology, 2020. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Traditional Chinese medicine in pancreatitis: mechanisms, integrative strategies, and clinical perspectives.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- The known genetic variants of BRCA1, BRCA2 and NOD2 in pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer risk assessment.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Unraveling the immunological landscape in acute pancreatitis progression to sepsis: insights from a Mendelian randomization study on immune cell traits.Frontiers in immunology · 2024Article
- Severe Pain in Chronic Pancreatitis Patients: Considering Mental Health and Associated Genetic Factors.Journal of pain research · 2021Review
- Constant-severe pain in chronic pancreatitis is associated with genetic loci for major depression in the NAPS2 cohort.Journal of gastroenterology · 2020Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purpose of reviewWe describe and contrast the strengths of precision medicine with Western medicine, and complex trait genetics with Mendelian genetics. Classic genetics focuses on highly penetrant pathogenic variants in a single gene believed to cause or confer a high risk for well-defined phenotypes. However, a minority of disorders have a single gene cause. Further, even individuals with identical Mendelian disease-associated genotypes may exhibit substantial phenotypic variability indicative of genetic and environmental modifiers. Still, most diseases are considered complex traits (or complex diseases). RECENT
findingsNew insights into the genetic underpinnings of complex traits provide opportunities for advances in diagnosis and management. Precision medicine provides the framework for integrating complex trait knowledge into clinical care through a sophisticated analysis pipeline. Multidimensional modeling of acquired diseases includes multiple genetic risks scattered over many genes and gene regulators that must be interpreted on the basis of functional evidence (e.g., genomics, transcriptomics) with structured models and expert systems; strengthened with machine learning and artificial intelligence. The choice of genotyping approaches (shotgun sequencing, single nucleotide polymorphism chips, targeted panels) is discussed. SUMMARY: The result of a good precision medicine tool is clinical-decision support and guidance to tackle complex disorders such as pancreatitis, diabetes, and pancreatic cancer oncogenesis.
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.