ReviewMed (New York, N.Y.)2024
Preclinical assessment for translation to humans: The PATH approach for assessing supporting evidence for early-phase trials and innovative care.
Review in Med (New York, N.Y.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Psychological and neurological benefits of physical activity: impact on mental health, Parkinson's disease, and Alzheimer's disease.Brain structure & function · 2026Review
- Translational assessment instruments for preclinical to first-in-human decision-making: a scoping review.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Article
- A Noisy Signal? Geographic Bias in FAERS Reports Linking Paracetamol to Autism Spectrum Disorder.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Epigenetics: the master switch of nasopharyngeal carcinoma invasion and metastasis.Frontiers in immunology · 2026Review
- An organoid-guided roadmap for precision delivery of epigallocatechin gallate in oral submucous fibrosis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Article
- Supporting evidence in phase 2 cancer trial protocols: a content analysis.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2025Article
- Challenges of Conducting Risk-Benefit Analysis of Early Phase Clinical Trials: Results of a National Survey of IRB Chairs.Ethics & human researchArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
Early-phase trials and innovative care draw support from basic science, preclinical studies, and clinical research. Such evidential diversity presents a challenge for traditional ways of synthesizing evidence. In what follows, we review the limitations of existing approaches for communicating supporting evidence for early-phase trials. We then offer a structured approach, PATH (preclinical assessment for translation to humans). PATH is grounded in the premise that the case for administering novel strategies to patients requires connecting the dots between nine mechanistic steps supporting a clinical claim. Using PATH entails first parsing supporting evidence, assessing the strength of evidence at each step, and then assessing the strength of a chain of evidence linking drug administration to clinical effect. While PATH requires further refinement, the approach reduces some of the opacity, arbitrariness, and biases in current ways of presenting and assessing scientific support for early-phase trials and innovative care.
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.