Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33846347›Full record

ReviewNPJ Regenerative medicine2021

Regenerative medicine meets mathematical modelling: developing symbiotic relationships.

S L Waters, L J Schumacher, A J El Haj

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in NPJ Regenerative medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing 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

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. OPTRACE: Optical Imaging-Guided Transplantation and Tracking of Cells in the Mouse Brain.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Mutanobactin-D, aInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. AnJournal of the Royal Society, Interface · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Article
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.

S L WatersOxford Centre for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Mathematical Institute, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
L J SchumacherCentre for Regenerative Medicine, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh BioQuarter, Edinburgh, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0797-3406
A J El HajHealthcare Technology Institute, Institute of Translational Medicine, School of Chemical Engineering, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. A.ElHaj@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3544-5678

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K017047/1Medical Research Council MR/R015635/1Medical Research Council MR/T015489/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Successful progression from bench to bedside for regenerative medicine products is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach. What has not yet been fully recognised is the potential for quantitative data analysis and mathematical modelling approaches to support this process. In this review, we highlight the wealth of opportunities for embedding mathematical and computational approaches within all stages of the regenerative medicine pipeline. We explore how exploiting quantitative mathematical and computational approaches, alongside state-of-the-art regenerative medicine research, can lead to therapies that potentially can be more rapidly translated into the clinic.

Identifiers

PMID33846347
PMCPMC8042047

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.