ArticlePeerJ2024
Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Leveraging automated time-lapse microscopy coupled with deep learning to automate colony forming assay.Frontiers in oncology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) is a common adult leukemia characterized by the accumulation of neoplastic mature B cells in blood, bone marrow, lymph nodes, and spleen. The disease biology remains unresolved in many aspects, including the processes underlying the disease progression and relapses. However, studying CLL Methods: In our study, we investigated the behavior of CLL cells in two types of material: (i) solid porous collagen scaffolds and (ii) gel composed of carboxymethyl cellulose and polyethylene glycol (CMC-PEG). We studied CLL cells' distribution, morphology, and viability in these materials by a transmitted-light and confocal microscopy. We also measured the metabolic activity of cultured cells. Additionally, the expression levels of Results: Both materials were biocompatible, translucent, and permeable, as assessed by metabolic assays, cell staining, and microscopy. While collagen scaffolds featured easy manipulation, washability, transferability, and biodegradability, CMC-PEG was advantageous for its easy preparation process and low variability in the number of accommodated cells. Both materials promoted cell-to-cell and cell-to-matrix interactions due to the scaffold structure and generation of cell aggregates. The metabolic activity of CLL cells cultured in CMC-PEG gel was similar to or higher than in conventional culture. Compared to the conventional culture, there was (i) a lower expression of
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.