Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35070734›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of clinical oncology2021

Liver regeneration biology: Implications for liver tumour therapies.

Christopher Hadjittofi, Michael Feretis, Jack Martin, Simon Harper, Emmanuel Huguet

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of clinical oncology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Therapeutic strategies to improve liver regeneration after hepatectomy.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2023
    Review
  6. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christopher HadjittofiUniversity Department of Surgery, Addenbrookes Hospital, NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research and Academic Health Sciences Center, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom.
Michael FeretisUniversity Department of Surgery, Addenbrookes Hospital, NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research and Academic Health Sciences Center, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom.
Jack MartinUniversity Department of Surgery, Addenbrookes Hospital, NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research and Academic Health Sciences Center, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom.
Simon HarperUniversity Department of Surgery, Addenbrookes Hospital, NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research and Academic Health Sciences Center, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom.
Emmanuel HuguetUniversity Department of Surgery, Addenbrookes Hospital, NIHR Comprehensive Biomedical Research and Academic Health Sciences Center, Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Cambridge CB2 0QQ, United Kingdom. emmanuel.huguet@addenbrookes.nhs.uk.
Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The liver has remarkable regenerative potential, with the capacity to regenerate after 75% hepatectomy in humans and up to 90% hepatectomy in some rodent models, enabling it to meet the challenge of diverse injury types, including physical trauma, infection, inflammatory processes, direct toxicity, and immunological insults. Current understanding of liver regeneration is based largely on animal research, historically in large animals, and more recently in rodents and zebrafish, which provide powerful genetic manipulation experimental tools. Whilst immensely valuable, these models have limitations in extrapolation to the human situation. In vitro models have evolved from 2-dimensional culture to complex 3 dimensional organoids, but also have shortcomings in replicating the complex hepatic micro-anatomical and physiological milieu. The process of liver regeneration is only partially understood and characterized by layers of complexity. Liver regeneration is triggered and controlled by a multitude of mitogens acting in autocrine, paracrine, and endocrine ways, with much redundancy and cross-talk between biochemical pathways. The regenerative response is variable, involving both hypertrophy and true proliferative hyperplasia, which is itself variable, including both cellular phenotypic fidelity and cellular trans-differentiation, according to the type of injury. Complex interactions occur between parenchymal and non-parenchymal cells, and regeneration is affected by the status of the liver parenchyma, with differences between healthy and diseased liver. Finally, the process of termination of liver regeneration is even less well understood than its triggers. The complexity of liver regeneration biology combined with limited understanding has restricted specific clinical interventions to enhance liver regeneration. Moreover, manipulating the fundamental biochemical pathways involved would require cautious assessment, for fear of unintended consequences. Nevertheless, current knowledge provides guiding principles for strategies to optimise liver regeneration potential.

Indexed as

LiverLiver regeneration potentialRegeneration biologyTherapiesTumour

Identifiers

PMID35070734
PMCPMC8716989
OpenAlexW4200574673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.