ArticleFrontiers in big data2019
Human Cell-Based
Article in Frontiers in big data, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing biologic/toxicologic effects of extractables from plastic contact materials for advanced therapy manufacturing using cell painting assay and cytotoxicity screening.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Structural Modification in Anesthetic Drug Development for Prodrugs and Soft Drugs.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- A review for cell-based screening methods in drug discovery.Biophysics reports · 2021Article
- Use of a rapid human primary cell-based disease screening model, to compare next generation products to combustible cigarettes.Current research in toxicology · 2021Article
- Gini Coefficients as a Single Value Metric to Define Chemical Probe Selectivity.ACS chemical biology · 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ensuring the safety of new drugs is critically important to regulators, pharmaceutical researchers and patients alike. Even so, unexpected toxicities still account for 20-30% of clinical trial failures, in part due to the persistence of animal testing as the primary approach for de-risking new drugs. Clearly, improved methods for safety attrition that incorporate human-relevant biology are needed. This recognition has spurred interest in non-animal alternatives or new approach methodologies (NAMs) including
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.