Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42558493›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cell and developmental biology2026

Brooke Kinsela, Olga Zaytseva, Damien Muckle, Teresa T Bonello, Leonie M Quinn

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cell and developmental biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Brooke KinselaGenome Science and Cancer Division, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Olga ZaytsevaGenome Science and Cancer Division, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Damien MuckleGenome Science and Cancer Division, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Teresa T BonelloGenome Science and Cancer Division, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.
Leonie M QuinnGenome Science and Cancer Division, The John Curtin School of Medical Research, The Australian National University, Canberra, ACT, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Gliomas are the most common primary brain tumours in adults, characterised by significant cellular and molecular heterogeneity. Recent advances in molecular profiling have transformed brain tumour classification but, despite these developments, gliomas remain refractory to standard and targeted treatments. The prediction that glioma stem cells (GSCs) drive tumour initiation has focused research efforts on determining intrinsic mechanisms driving acquisition of stemness. Nevertheless, GSCs reside in a cellular environment (or stem cell niche) comprised of differentiated glioma cells, with potential to influence stemness of neighbouring GSCs. Thus, if we are to understand initiation and progression of these stem cell-driven tumours, in addition to elucidating cell intrinsic regulation of GSC fate, we must also delineate extrinsic signalling inputs from the GSC niche. For this, we require

Indexed as

Drosophilaextracellular matrixgliomaglioma stem cellneural stem cellstem cell niche

Identifiers

PMID42558493
PMCPMC13437789

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.