Evidence mapPaperPMID 37528729Full record

ReviewBiology letters2023

Flight for fish in drug discovery: a review of zebrafish-based screening of molecules.

Surjya Narayan Dash, Lipika Patnaik

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biology letters, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
7.5field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Effects ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The zebrafish (NAR genomics and bioinformatics · 2025
    Article
  15. The Zebrafish Model in Animal and Human Health Research.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Toxicity Study on Crude Alkaloid Extracts ofMolecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Surjya Narayan DashInstitute of Biotechnology, Biocenter 2. Viikinkaari, University of Helsinki, Viikinkaari 5D, 00790 Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-1232-2923
Lipika PatnaikEnvironmental Science Laboratory, Department of Zoology, COE in Environment and Public Health, Ravenshaw University, Cuttack 751003, Odisha, India.
Ravenshaw University · INUniversity of Helsinki · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Human disease and biological practices are modelled in zebrafish (

Indexed as

NeoplasmsZebrafishAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalDrug DiscoveryHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysHumansMammalsPhenotypedisease modeldrug screeningmoleculestoxicityzebrafish

Identifiers

PMID37528729
PMCPMC10394424
OpenAlexW4385477663

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.