ReviewBiomedicines2024
Non-Mammalian Models for Understanding Neurological Defects in RASopathies.
Review in Biomedicines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
RASopathies, a group of neurodevelopmental congenital disorders stemming from mutations in the RAS/MAPK pathway, present a unique opportunity to delve into the intricacies of complex neurological disorders. Afflicting approximately one in a thousand newborns, RASopathies manifest as abnormalities across multiple organ systems, with a pronounced impact on the central and peripheral nervous system. In the pursuit of understanding RASopathies' neurobiology and establishing phenotype-genotype relationships, in vivo non-mammalian models have emerged as indispensable tools. Species such as
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.