ReviewBioMed research international2020
The Trends of Single-Cell Analysis: A Global Study.
Review in BioMed research international, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cell-type-specific alkaloid and terpenoid biosynthesis in glandular trichomes: single-cell and spatial transcriptomic perspectives.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
- Application of mass cytometry in the immune microenvironment of breast cancer.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- Targeting HMGB2 acts as dual immunomodulator by bolstering CD8Science advances · 2025Article
- Integration of single-cell and spatial transcriptomics reveals fibroblast subtypes in hepatocellular carcinoma: spatial distribution, differentiation trajectories, and therapeutic potential.Journal of translational medicine · 2025Article
- To describe the subsets of malignant epithelial cells in gastric cancer, their developmental trajectories and drug resistance characteristics.Discover oncology · 2025Article
- Exacerbation of pulmonary fibrosis following acute lung injury via activin-A production by recruited alveolar macrophages.Journal of thoracic disease · 2024Article
- Dose-related immunomodulatory effects of recombinant TRAIL in the tumor immune microenvironment.Journal of experimental & clinical cancer research : CR · 2023Article
- CD36Cell discovery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe field of single-cell analysis has rapidly grown worldwide, and a bibliometric analysis and visualization of data and publications pertaining to such single-cell research has the potential to offer insights into the development of this field over the past two decades while also highlighting future avenues of research.
methodsSingle-cell analysis-related studies published from 2000-2019 were identified through searches of the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed databases, and corresponding bibliometric data were systematically compiled. Extracted data from each study included author names, country of origin, and affiliations. GraphPad Prism was used to analyze these data, while VOSviewer was used to perform global analyses of bibliographic coupling, coauthorship, cocitation, and co-occurrence.
resultsIn total, 4,071 relevant studies were included in this analysis. The number of publications increased substantially with time, suggesting that single-cell analyses are becoming increasingly more prevalent in recent years. Studies from the USA had the greatest impact in this field, with higher
conclusionsSingle-cell analyses are a rapidly growing area of scientific interest, and higher volumes of publications in this field are expected in the coming years, particularly for studies conducting fabrication and in vivo single-cell analyses.
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.