ReviewBiology2023
An Updated Overview of Existing Cancer Databases and Identified Needs.
Review in Biology, 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating artificial intelligence and multi-omics data for precision oncology in endometrial cancer: a narrative review.Functional & integrative genomics · 2026Review
- Decoding the functional impact of the cancer genome through protein-protein interactions.Nature reviews. Cancer · 2025Review
- Transcriptome and Lipidomic Analysis Suggests Lipid Metabolism Reprogramming and UpregulatingMetabolites · 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Our search of existing cancer databases aimed to assess the current landscape and identify key needs. We analyzed 71 databases, focusing on genomics, proteomics, lipidomics, and glycomics. We found a lack of cancer-related lipidomic and glycomic databases, indicating a need for further development in these areas. Proteomic databases dedicated to cancer research were also limited. To assess overall progress, we included human non-cancer databases in proteomics, lipidomics, and glycomics for comparison. This provided insights into advancements in these fields over the past eight years. We also analyzed other types of cancer databases, such as clinical trial databases and web servers. Evaluating user-friendliness, we used the FAIRness principle to assess findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability. This ensured databases were easily accessible and usable. Our search summary highlights significant growth in cancer databases while identifying gaps and needs. These insights are valuable for researchers, clinicians, and database developers, guiding efforts to enhance accessibility, integration, and usability. Addressing these needs will support advancements in cancer research and benefit the wider cancer community.
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.