ReviewCell reports methods2025
Validation of microphysiological systems for interpreting patient heterogeneity requires robust reproducibility analytics and experimental metadata.
Review in Cell reports methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- PK-Informed Microphysiological Systems: From Dynamic Dosing to Quantitative In Vitro-In Vivo Translation.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Integration of biological avatars and digital twins for "ex vivo clinical trials".EBioMedicine · 2026Review
- Recent advances in sex-specific reproductive microphysiological systems for the systematic evaluation of assisted reproductive technology.Materials today. Bio · 2026Review
- Article
- Human Organoids and Organ-on-Chip for Biotoxin Assessment: Applications, Best Practices, and a Translational Roadmap.Toxins · 2026Review
- Scaling human liver microphysiological systems: implementing a higher-throughput liver acinus microphysiological system platform.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2026Article
- Article
- Perspectives on variability ofFrontiers in toxicology · 2026Article
- Integrated Patient Digital and Biomimetic Twins for Precision Medicine: A Perspective.Seminars in liver disease · 2025Review
- Integrating AUROC and SSMD for quality control in high-throughput screening assays.SLAS discovery : advancing life sciences R & D · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Multi-cell-type, 3D microphysiological systems (MPS) that recapitulate normal organ/organ system functions and the progression of diseases are being applied in drug discovery and development programs to enable precision medicine. A critical step for this application is to demonstrate the reproducibility of the MPS and its ability to identify biologic/clinical heterogeneity from experimental variability, which requires capturing detailed metadata associated with MPS studies as well as a strong analytical approach for assessing reproducibility. Detailed metadata ensure that identical study parameters are being compared when evaluating reproducibility. We have developed the Pittsburgh reproducibility protocol (PReP), which uses a set of common statistical metrics, the coefficient of variation (CV), ANOVA, and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), in a pipeline as a standard approach to evaluate the intra- and interstudy reproducibility of MPS performance. The PReP can be employed to identify biological/clinical heterogeneity relevant to precision medicine.
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.