ReviewBiology methods & protocols2024
Pyrimethamine reduced tumour growth in pre-clinical cancer models: a systematic review to identify potential pre-clinical studies for subsequent human clinical trials.
Review in Biology methods & protocols, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improving Laboratory-Based Cancer Drug Discovery Study Designs for Better Research Translations.Methods and protocols · 2026Review
- Construction and validation of a lung adenocarcinoma prognostic model based on neutrophil extracellular traps and oxidative stress-related genes.European journal of medical research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Pyrimethamine (PYR), a STAT3 inhibitor, has been shown to reduce tumour burden in mouse cancer models. It is unclear how much of a reduction occurred or whether the PYR dosages and route of administration used in mice were consistent with the FDA's recommendations for drug repurposing. Search engines such as ScienceDirect, PubMed/MEDLINE, and other databases, including Google Scholar, were thoroughly searched, as was the reference list. The systematic review includes fourteen (14) articles. The risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using SYRCLE's guidelines. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, no meta-analysis was performed. According to the RoB assessment, 13/14 studies fall into the moderate RoB category, with one study classified as high RoB. None adhered to the ARRIVE guideline for transparent research reporting. Oral (FDA-recommended) and non-oral routes of PYR administration were used in mice, with several studies reporting very high PYR dosages that could lead to myelosuppression, while oral PYR dosages of 30 mg/kg or less are considered safe. Direct human equivalent dose translation is probably not the best strategy for comparing whether the used PYR dosages in mice are in line with FDA-approved strength because pharmacokinetic profiles, particularly PYR's half-life (t
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.