Evidence mapPaperPMID 40497429Full record

ReviewPhysiological reviews2025

The human placenta and its role in reproductive outcomes revisited.

Irving L M H Aye, Stephen Tong, D Stephen Charnock-Jones, Gordon C S Smith

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Physiological reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. The human placenta development and anatomy.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. The Role of Angiogenetic Factors in Preeclampsia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  12. Review
  13. 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

4 authors.

Irving L M H AyeDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Cambridge, National Institute for Health and Care Research Cambridge Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-3400-5005
Stephen TongDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2319-0586
D Stephen Charnock-JonesDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Cambridge, National Institute for Health and Care Research Cambridge Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-2936-4890
Gordon C S SmithDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Cambridge, National Institute for Health and Care Research Cambridge Comprehensive Biomedical Research Centre, Cambridge, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2124-0997

Funding

Department of Health 15/105/01Federal Government | DHAC | National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC)Medical Research Council G1100221Medical Research Council MR/W025620/1Medical Research Council MR/W027046/1Medical Research Council MR/X000346/1UKRI | Medical Research Council (MRC)Wellcome Trust 215524Wellcome Trust (WT)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The placenta performs many key tasks that are essential for the healthy growth and development of the human fetus. Placental dysfunction has multiple manifestations, but they share the common property of lacking a mechanistic understanding of etiology. The clinical consequences of placental dysfunction are a major determinant of the global burden of disease. Currently, the primary clinical method for assessing placental function is ultrasonic Doppler flow velocimetry of the umbilical and uterine arteries. More recently, some biomarkers have emerged that can predict or diagnose placentally related complications of pregnancy. However, methods for identifying and characterizing placental dysfunction have developed relatively little over the last 20 years and perform poorly, and there remains an absence of disease-modifying therapies targeted at the placenta. Understanding disease mechanisms is made more difficult due to the profound differences in pregnancy and placentation comparing humans and the most commonly used laboratory animals, limiting the utility of animal models. The use of omics methods in human samples may yield progress: omics analyses of maternal blood show promise in identifying better predictors of disease, and single-cell analyses, including spatial omics of healthy and abnormal placentas, could identify therapeutic targets. Limitations in cellular models of the placenta have been significantly overcome in the last 5 to 10 years by the development of human cell models, including human trophoblast stem cells and organoids, and the use of these model systems may allow hypothesis testing experiments in a more clinically relevant context than animal models or immortalized cell lines.

Indexed as

PlacentaPlacenta DiseasesReproductionAnimalsFemaleHumansPlacentationPregnancydevelopmentfetal growth restrictionpreeclampsiapregnancytrophoblast

Identifiers

PMID40497429
PMCPMC7617900

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.