ReviewPharmaceutics2026
A Biology-Driven Framework for Selecting, Engineering, and Validating Physiologically Relevant Multicellular Tumour Models.
Review in Pharmaceutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physiologically relevant tumour models are increasingly used in cancer research, drug development, and functional precision oncology, yet selection often remains platform-led rather than biology-led. This structured critical narrative review proposes an operational framework linking model selection, engineering, and validation to six interdependent domains: multicellular organization and heterogeneity, extracellular-matrix architecture and mechanics, stromal regulation, vascular and interstitial transport, immune regulation and communication, and metabolic regulation with biochemical gradients. The framework distinguishes mechanism-guided questions, in which a candidate causal mechanism can be prespecified, from discovery-oriented questions, in which the determinant is unknown and candidate functions are tested through nested or factorial configurations before a minimal sufficient explanatory model is defined. Required functions are classified as essential, context-modifying, non-essential, or uncertain, and preservation-oriented, reconstruction-oriented, and hybrid strategies are distinguished from the technological format used to implement them. For pharmaceutical applications, delivered exposure, matrix or device binding, tissue penetration, transport, dosing schedule, and recovery are treated as qualification variables when they can change apparent potency or response. The practical contribution is a traceable biology-to-decision record linking the decision and mechanism status to function selection, model configuration, qualification evidence, complexity-retention rules, and claim boundaries. Model qualification is separated from external association, prospective predictive validity, and clinical utility. Among the representative studies appraised, direct functional and configuration-specific pharmacological evidence was demonstrated more often than interlaboratory transfer, independently validated prospective prediction, or clinical utility. Physiological relevance should therefore be demonstrated through decision-critical function rather than inferred from platform complexity or component count. The proposed decision rules remain unvalidated prospectively and across laboratories.
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.