ArticleInternational journal of molecular sciences2023
Pulsed Electric Field Ablation of Esophageal Malignancies and Mitigating Damage to Smooth Muscle: An In Vitro Study.
Article in International journal of molecular sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Resolving nanosecond kinetics of the optical membrane potential in pulsed electric fields.Bioelectrochemistry (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026Article
- Excitation and polarization of isolated neurons by high-frequency sine waves for temporal interference stimulation.Cell reports. Physical science · 2025Article
- Effects of Nanosecond Pulsed Electric Field (nsPEF) on a Multicellular Spheroid Tumor Model: Influence of Pulse Duration, Pulse Repetition Rate, Absorbed Energy, and Temperature.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cancer ablation therapies aim to be efficient while minimizing damage to healthy tissues. Nanosecond pulsed electric field (nsPEF) is a promising ablation modality because of its selectivity against certain cell types and reduced neuromuscular effects. We compared cell killing efficiency by PEF (100 pulses, 200 ns-10 µs duration, 10 Hz) in a panel of human esophageal cells (normal and pre-malignant epithelial and smooth muscle). Normal epithelial cells were less sensitive than the pre-malignant ones to unipolar PEF (15-20% higher LD50,
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.