Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32954058›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in systems biology2018

Discrete dynamic network modeling of oncogenic signaling: Mechanistic insights for personalized treatment of cancer.

Jorge G T Zañudo, Steven N Steinway, Réka Albert

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in systems biology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Influence maximization in Boolean networks.Nature communications · 2022
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. In Silico Logical Modelling to Uncover Cooperative Interactions in Cancer.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  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

3 authors.

Jorge G T ZañudoDepartment of Physics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.
Steven N SteinwayDepartment of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA.
Réka AlbertDepartment of Physics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Targeted drugs disrupting proteins that are dysregulated in cancer have emerged as promising treatments because of their specificity to cancer cell aberrations and thus their improved side effect profile. However, their success remains limited, largely due to existing or emergent therapy resistance. We suggest that this is due to limited understanding of the entire relevant cellular landscape. A class of mathematical models called discrete dynamic network models can be used to understand the integrated effect of an individual tumor's aberrations. We review the recent literature on discrete dynamic models of cancer and highlight their predicted therapeutic strategies. We believe dynamic network modeling can be used to drive treatment decision-making in a personalized manner to direct improved treatments in cancer.

Indexed as

Boolean modelCancer phenotypesCombinatorial therapyDiscrete dynamical systemDrug resistanceDynamic modelNetwork modelPersonalized therapySignal transduction networksTargeted cancer therapy

Identifiers

PMID32954058
PMCPMC7487767

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.