ReviewBiomolecules2025
Human Stem Cell-Based Embryo Models in Implantation Research: Regulation, Consistency and Potential.
Review in Biomolecules, 2025. 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.
- What counts as an embryo? : The regulatory status of stem cell-based embryo models in Asia.EMBO reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of human stem cell-based embryo models (hSCBEM) in implantation research is developing rapidly. This raises regulatory and ethical issues as these models become more complex and get closer to morphological and functional identity with human embryos. This paper provides an analysis of two possible approaches to resolving the regulatory issues. The first approach is to try to achieve consistency with current regulation of embryo research, and the second approach is to elaborate the regulation of hSCBEMs based on their developmental potential. It is shown that both approaches are problematic. The consistency approach is problematic because the current regulation of embryo research is best understood as being the result of a historical, political compromise in most jurisdictions. And the approach based on assessment of developmental potential is problematic because of unavoidable epistemic uncertainty about the potential of a new hSCBEM, and because of problems in determining what constitutes a particular model, and what changes to a model makes it into a different model.
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.