Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36612187›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

The CAM Model-Q&A with Experts.

Dagmar Fischer, Georg Fluegen, Paul Garcia, Nassim Ghaffari-Tabrizi-Wizsy, Laura Gribaldo, Ruby Yun-Ju Huang, Volker Rasche, Domenico Ribatti, Xavier Rousset, Marta Texeira Pinto and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

46 citing papers in PubMed, 62 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Exploring endometriosis through 3DMaterials today. Bio · 2026
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Liquid Metal Microrobots for Magnetically Guided Transvascular Navigation.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  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

13 authors at 10 institutions in 7 countries.

Dagmar FischerDivision of Pharmaceutical Technology, Department of Chemistry and Pharmacy, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91058 Erlangen, Germany.
Georg FluegenDepartment of General, Visceral, Thoracic and Pediatric Surgery (A), Medical Faculty, Heinrich-Heine-University, University Hospital Duesseldorf, 40225 Duesseldorf, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-9322-1659
Paul GarciaInstitute for Advanced Biosciences, Research Center Université Grenoble Alpes (UGA)/Inserm U 1209/CNRS 5309, 38700 La Tronche, France.ORCID 0000-0003-1829-816X
Nassim Ghaffari-Tabrizi-WizsySFL Chicken CAM Lab, Department of Immunology, Otto Loewi Research Center, Medical University of Graz, 8010 Graz, Austria.
Laura GribaldoEuropean Commission, Joint Research Centre (JRC), 21027 Ispra, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-0595-0756
Ruby Yun-Ju HuangSchool of Medicine, College of Medicine, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10051, Taiwan.ORCID 0000-0001-6376-3185
Volker RascheDepartment of Internal Medicine II, Ulm University Medical Center, 89073 Ulm, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8844-3583
Domenico RibattiDepartment of Translational Biomedicine and Neurosciences, University of Bari "Aldo Moro", 70124 Bari, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4768-8431
Xavier RoussetR&D Department, Inovotion, 38700 La Tronche, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5830-6577
Marta Texeira Pintoi3S-Instituto de Investigação e Inovação em Saúde, Universidade do Porto, 4200-135 Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0002-8521-2904
Jean VialletR&D Department, Inovotion, 38700 La Tronche, France.
Yan WangR&D Department, Inovotion, 38700 La Tronche, France.
Regine Schneider-StockExperimental Tumorpathology, Institute of Pathology, Universitätsklinikum Erlangen, FAU Erlangen-Nürnberg, 91054 Erlangen, Germany.
Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRDüsseldorf University Hospital · DEFriedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg · DEJoint Research Centre · ITMedical University of Graz · ATNational University of Singapore · SGUniversidade do Porto · PTUniversitätsklinikum Erlangen · DEUniversität Ulm · DEUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The chick chorioallantoic membrane (CAM), as an extraembryonic tissue layer generated by the fusion of the chorion with the vascularized allantoic membrane, is easily accessible for manipulation. Indeed, grafting tumor cells on the CAM lets xenografts/ovografts develop in a few days for further investigations. Thus, the CAM model represents an alternative test system that is a simple, fast, and low-cost tool to study tumor growth, drug response, or angiogenesis in vivo. Recently, a new era for the CAM model in immune-oncology-based drug discovery has been opened up. Although there are many advantages offering extraordinary and unique applications in cancer research, it has also disadvantages and limitations. This review will discuss the pros and cons with experts in the field.

Indexed as

angiogenesis modeldrug discoveryimmune-oncologymetastasis modelpersonalized therapystandard operation procedurestumor growth

Identifiers

PMID36612187
PMCPMC9818221
OpenAlexW4313409784

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.