Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35692443›Full record

ReviewPrecision clinical medicine2022

Tumorigenicity risk of iPSCs

Chaoliang Zhong, Miao Liu, Xinghua Pan, Haiying Zhu

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Precision clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. The role of stem cells in precision medicine: next-generation cancer treatment.Journal of the Egyptian National Cancer Institute · 2025
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

4 authors.

Chaoliang ZhongDepartment of Cell Biology, Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200433, China.
Miao LiuDepartment of Cell Biology, Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200433, China.
Xinghua PanDepartment of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, School of Basic Medical Sciences, and Guangdong Provincial Key Laboratory of Single Cell Technology and Application, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou 510515, China.
Haiying ZhuDepartment of Cell Biology, Naval Medical University, Shanghai 200433, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2006, Takahashi and Yamanaka first created induced pluripotent stem cells from mouse fibroblasts via the retroviral introduction of genes encoding the transcription factors Oct3/4, Sox2, Klf44, and c-Myc. Since then, the future clinical application of somatic cell reprogramming technology has become an attractive research topic in the field of regenerative medicine. Of note, considerable interest has been placed in circumventing ethical issues linked to embryonic stem cell research. However, tumorigenicity, immunogenicity, and heterogeneity may hamper attempts to deploy this technology therapeutically. This review highlights the progress aimed at reducing induced pluripotent stem cells tumorigenicity risk and how to assess the safety of induced pluripotent stem cells cell therapy products.

Indexed as

chemical-induced reprogrammingdrug-inducible suicide systeminduced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs)regenerative medicinereprogramming transcription factorstumorigenicity

Identifiers

PMID35692443
PMCPMC9026204

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.