Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38236999›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in hematology2024

Vascular microphysiological systems.

Sarah E Shelton

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in hematology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 31% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarah E SheltonJoint Department of Biomedical Engineering at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.
North Carolina State University · US

Funding

SToP Cancer SPORE: Developmental Research ProgramP50CA257911 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI Jen Jen Yeh · 2022 to 2026
$12.9M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA257911
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewThis review summarizes innovations in vascular microphysiological systems (MPS) and discusses the themes that have emerged from recent works. RECENT

findingsVascular MPS are increasing in complexity and ability to replicate tissue. Many labs use vascular MPS to study transport phenomena such as analyzing endothelial barrier function. Beyond vascular permeability, these models are also being used for pharmacological studies, including drug distribution and toxicity modeling. In part, these studies are made possible due to exciting advances in organ-specific models. Inflammatory processes have also been modeled by incorporating immune cells, with the ability to explore both cell migration and function. Finally, as methods for generating vascular MPS flourish, many researchers have turned their attention to incorporating flow to more closely recapitulate in vivo conditions. SUMMARY: These models represent many different types of tissue and disease states. Some devices have relatively simple geometry and few cell types, while others use complex, multicompartmental microfluidics and integrate several cell types and origins. These 3D models enable us to observe model evolution in real time and perform a plethora of functional assays not possible using traditional cell culture methods.

Indexed as

MicrofluidicsMicrophysiological SystemsCell Culture TechniquesHumans

Identifiers

PMID38236999
PMCPMC13334779
OpenAlexW4390966128

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.