ArticlePloS one2025
Understanding the aliya pulsed electric field dose-response relationship: Implications for ablation size, thermal load, and immune response in an orthotopic murine breast cancer model.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- The role of pulsed electric field therapy in non-small cell lung cancer: a narrative review of a novel minimally invasive intervention.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Review
- Translating physical stress into biological signals: precision electro-oncology based on conformational changes of electro-sensitive receptors and parameterized immune remodeling.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
- Six-Month Local Control Rates and Immune Responses After Pulsed Electric Field Ablation in Metastatic Cancer.Cancers · 2025Article
- Impact of Voltage on the Production on Spherical Ablations for Integrated Time Nanosecond Pulse Irreversible Electroporation.Bioelectricity · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aliya®Pulsed Electric Field (PEF) technology is an emerging strategy in the field of cancer treatment, offering a novel approach to ablation therapy that does not rely on thermal mechanisms. By employing a multi-stage experimental setup, including potato tuber, porcine liver, and murine breast cancer models, we explored the dose-response relationship on ablation and immune modulation by varying the pulse packets delivered from 20 to 100. The biologic response observed with 60 packets represented a minimum effective dose yielding reproducible ablation parameters, immune response, and efficacy which could be augmented with immune checkpoint blockade. This pre-clinical analysis provides a first step toward understanding the therapeutic index for PEF technology beyond ablation, a consideration that will require robust clinical validation in well-designed prospective studies.
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.