Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37001517›Full record

ArticleStem cell reports2023

Public perceptions and expectations: Disentangling the hope and hype of organoid research.

Tine Ravn, Mads P Sørensen, Emma Capulli, Panagiotis Kavouras, Renzo Pegoraro, Mario Picozzi, Louise I Saugstrup, Eleni Spyrakou, Vana Stavridi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Stem cell reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–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

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Bioengineering ethics for the age of microphysiological systems.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

9 authors.

Tine RavnPolitical Science, Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark. Electronic address: tr@ps.au.dk.
Mads P SørensenPolitical Science, Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Emma CapulliDepartment of Medicine and Surgery, Insubria University, Varese, Italy.
Panagiotis KavourasSchool of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Renzo PegoraroPontifical Academy for Life, Rome, Italy.
Mario PicozziCenter for Clinical Ethics, Biotechnology and Life Sciences Department, Insubria University, Varese, Italy.
Louise I SaugstrupPolitical Science, Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy, Aarhus University, Aarhus C, Denmark.
Eleni SpyrakouSchool of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Vana StavridiSchool of Chemical Engineering, National Technical University of Athens, Athens, Greece.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Organoid technologies are rapidly advancing and hold great potential and hope for disease modeling and clinical translational research. Still, they raise a number of complex, ethical questions regarding their current and future use. Patient and public involvement is important in building public trust and helping to secure responsible conduct and valued innovations; nevertheless, research into patient and public perspectives on organoid technologies remains scarce. We report on a first public dialogue on organoid technologies through three cross-country deliberative workshops with a diverse group of stakeholders to identify their perceptions and concerns. Participants generally support organoid technologies on the condition that responsible governance, ethical oversight, and sound informed consent procedures are in place. Yet, a broad set of potential concerns are identified, primarily concerning commercialization, healthcare access, and cerebral organoids. Participants' insights and recommendations can help inform researchers and ethics and policy bodies toward supporting responsible and ethical organoid approaches.

Indexed as

MotivationPublic OpinionHumansInformed ConsentOrganoidsTranslational Research, BiomedicalethicsOrganoid technologiespublic and patient perspectivespublic deliberation

Identifiers

PMID37001517
PMCPMC10147824

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.