Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37332609›Full record

ReviewiScience2023

Mouse models in colon cancer, inferences, and implications.

Melanie Haas Kucherlapati

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in iScience, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Systemic administration ofJournal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Melanie Haas KucherlapatiDepartment of Genetics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Brigham and Women's Hospital · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mouse models of colorectal cancer (CRC) have been crucial in the identification of the role of genes responsible for the full range of pathology of the human disease and have proved to be dependable for testing anti-cancer drugs. Recent research points toward the relevance of tumor, angiogenic, and immune microenvironments in CRC progression to late-stage disease, as well as the treatment of it. This study examines important mouse models in CRC, discussing inherent strengths and weaknesses disclosed during their construction. It endeavors to provide both a synopsis of previous work covering how investigators have defined various models and to evaluate critically how researchers are most likely to use them in the future. Accumulated evidence regarding the metastatic process and the hope of using checkpoint inhibitors and immunological inhibitor therapies points to the need for a genetically engineered mouse model that is both immunocompetent and autochthonous.

Indexed as

CancerModel organism

Identifiers

PMID37332609
PMCPMC10272511
OpenAlexW4378070560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.