ReviewTrends in biotechnology2022
A hitchhiker's guide to cancer models.
Review in Trends in biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Closing the recapitulation gap in obesity-conditioned TNBC drug development.npj drug discovery · 2026Review
- Hydrophobic pp-HMDSO Coating for Three-Dimensional Cell Culture.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Review
- Article
- Reduced-order modeling of solute transport within physiologically realistic solid tumor microenvironment.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Informing development of brain cancer therapies within "preclinical trials" using ex vivo patient tumors.Advanced drug delivery reviews · 2026Review
- Article
- Comparative analysis of 3D-culture techniques for multicellular colorectal tumour spheroids and development of a novel SW48 3D-model.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Protocol for spatial characterization of ECM collagen-GAG in CRC tumor microenvironment.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Facilitation of Tumor Stroma-Targeted Therapy: Model Difficulty and Co-Culture Organoid Method.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Simulation approach for common female cancers: a brief review.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Advancing cancer research through organoid technology.Journal of translational medicine · 2024Review
- The scienthetic method: from Aristotle to AI and the future of medicine.British journal of cancer · 2024Review
- Review
- A comprehensive preanalytical protocol for fresh solid tumor biospecimens.Methods (San Diego, Calif.) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cancer is a complex and uniquely personal disease. More than 1.7 million people in the United States are diagnosed with cancer every year. As the burden of cancer grows, so does the need for new, more effective therapeutics and for predictive tools to identify optimal, personalized treatment options for every patient. Cancer models that recapitulate various aspects of the disease are fundamental to making advances along the continuum of cancer treatment from benchside discoveries to bedside delivery. In this review, we use a thought experiment as a vehicle to arrive at four broad categories of cancer models and explore the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats for each category in advancing our understanding of the disease and improving treatment strategies.
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.