Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34960140›Full record

ReviewVaccines2021

Directing T-Cell Immune Responses for Cancer Vaccination and Immunotherapy.

Peter Lawrence Smith, Katarzyna Piadel, Angus George Dalgleish

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Vaccines, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Antigen-Specific Stimulation of CD8Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Vaccines in Breast Cancer: Challenges and Breakthroughs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  14. Circular RNA vaccine induces potent T cell responses.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
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

3 authors.

Peter Lawrence SmithInstitute of Infection and Immunity, St. Georges University of London, London SW17 0RE, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9912-1851
Katarzyna PiadelInstitute of Infection and Immunity, St. Georges University of London, London SW17 0RE, UK.
Angus George DalgleishInstitute of Infection and Immunity, St. Georges University of London, London SW17 0RE, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer vaccination and immunotherapy revolutionised the treatment of cancer, a result of decades of research into the immune system in health and disease. However, despite recent breakthroughs in treating otherwise terminal cancer, only a minority of patients respond to cancer immunotherapy and some cancers are largely refractive to immunotherapy treatment. This is due to numerous issues intrinsic to the tumour, its microenvironment, or the immune system. CD4

Indexed as

cancercheckpoint inhibitionimmunotherapymetabolismmicrobiomeT-cellvaccine

Identifiers

PMID34960140
PMCPMC8708201

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.