ReviewStem cell reviews and reports2025
Evaluating Strategies to Assess the Differentiation Potential of Human Pluripotent Stem Cells: A Review, Analysis and Call for Innovation.
Review in Stem cell reviews and reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Blood Pharming of Red Cells.Transfusion medicine and hemotherapy : offizielles Organ der Deutschen Gesellschaft fur Transfusionsmedizin und Immunhamatologie · 2026Review
- Organ-on-a-Chip and Lab-on-a-Chip Technologies in Cardiac Tissue Engineering.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Metabolic Culture Medium Enhances Maturation of Human iPSC-Derived Cardiomyocytes via Cardiac Troponin I Isoform Induction.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
- Enhancing Retinal Regeneration through Dental Pulp Stem Cells -Based 3D Organoid Culture, Cytokine Regulation and Gene Editing Technologies.Stem cell reviews and reports · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pluripotent stem cells have the ability to differentiate into all cells and tissues within the human body, and as a result they are attractive resources for use in basic research, drug discovery and regenerative medicine. In order to successfully achieve this application, starting cell sources ideally require in-depth characterisation to confirm their pluripotent status and their ability to differentiate into tissues representative of the three developmental germ layers. Many different methods to assess potency are employed, each having its own distinct advantages and limitations. Some aspects of this characterisation process are not always well standardised, particularly techniques used to assess pluripotency as a function. In this article, we consider the methods used to establish cellular pluripotency and subsequently analyse characterisation data for over 1590 human pluripotent cell lines from publicly available repositories in the UK and USA. In particular, we focus on the teratoma xenograft assay, its use and protocols, demonstrating the level of variation and the frequency with which it is used. Finally, we reflect on the implications of the findings, and suggest in vitro alternatives using modern innovative technology as a way forward.
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.