Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35860739›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in medicine2022

Advances and Trends in Omics Technology Development.

Xiaofeng Dai, Li Shen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 217 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
217citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

217 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Application of Omics Technologies for Cowpea Improvement.Plant-environment interactions (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Current Applications and Future Prospects of High-ThroughputAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

157 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

2 authors.

Xiaofeng DaiWuxi School of Medicine, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, China.
Li ShenWuxi School of Medicine, Jiangnan University, Wuxi, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The human history has witnessed the rapid development of technologies such as high-throughput sequencing and mass spectrometry that led to the concept of "omics" and methodological advancement in systematically interrogating a cellular system. Yet, the ever-growing types of molecules and regulatory mechanisms being discovered have been persistently transforming our understandings on the cellular machinery. This renders cell omics seemingly, like the universe, expand with no limit and our goal toward the complete harness of the cellular system merely impossible. Therefore, it is imperative to review what has been done and is being done to predict what can be done toward the translation of omics information to disease control with minimal cell perturbation. With a focus on the "four big omics," i.e., genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, we delineate hierarchies of these omics together with their epiomics and interactomics, and review technologies developed for interrogation. We predict, among others, redoxomics as an emerging omics layer that views cell decision toward the physiological or pathological state as a fine-tuned redox balance.

Indexed as

mass spectrometrynext generation sequencingomicsredoxomicsthird generation sequencing

Identifiers

PMID35860739
PMCPMC9289742

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.