ReviewLeukemia2024
The evolution of preclinical models for myelodysplastic neoplasms.
Review in Leukemia, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- PANoptosis in the pathogenesis of myelodysplastic syndromes.Molecular oncology · 2026Review
- Lenalidomide boosts CD1d-Vδ2 bispecific antibody-engaged Vγ9Vδ2-T cell effector functions via CD28, Notch signaling and IL-2 release.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2026Article
- Cell Lines in Myelodysplastic Syndromes/Neoplasms (MDS) Research: A Review of Existing Models and Their Applications.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Humanized mouse models in MDS.Cell death & disease · 2025Review
- DNA Methylation, Aging, and Cancer.Epigenomes · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Myelodysplastic Neoplasms (MDS) are a group of clonal disorders characterized by ineffective hematopoiesis and morphologic dysplasia. Clinical manifestations of MDS vary widely and are dictated in large part by a range of genetic aberrations. The lack of robust in vitro models for MDS has limited the ability to conduct high throughput drug screens, which in turn has hampered the development of novel therapies for MDS. There are very few well-characterized MDS cell lines, and the available cell lines expand poorly in vitro. Conventional xenograft mouse models can provide an in vivo vessel to provide growth of cancer cells, but human MDS cells engraft poorly. Three-dimensional (3D) scaffold models that form human "ossicles" represent a promising new approach and can reproduce the intricate communication between hematopoietic stem and progenitor cells and their environment. Genetically engineered mice utilize specific mutations and may not represent the entire array of human MDS; however, genetically engineered mice provided in vivo proof of principle for novel agents such as luspatercept, demonstrating the clinical utility of this approach. This review offers an overview of available preclinical MDS models and potential approaches to accelerate accurate clinical translation.
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.