ReviewBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Functional Vascularization in Tumor Organoid and Tumor-on-Chip Models: Evidence Requirements for Attributing Therapy-Resistance Mechanisms.
Review in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vascularized tumor organoid and tumor-on-chip models are increasingly used to examine treatment response, yet a weak therapeutic effect does not by itself identify the failed transport or biological step. Reduced efficacy may result from inadequate delivery, altered endothelial transport or signaling, stromal protection, impaired immune access or function, tumor-intrinsic resistance, or several processes acting together. A structured literature search and narrative synthesis were combined with a focused qualitative appraisal of 25 eligible primary studies to determine what evidence is needed to distinguish these explanations. Twenty-one studies included a relevant comparator, a mechanism-directed perturbation, and a functional readout; four directly tested a principal competing explanation, and three included rescue or reversal. Most studies therefore supported a contributory mechanism under the tested conditions rather than an exclusive causal attribution, leaving transport, stromal, immune, and tumor-intrinsic routes incompletely separated. The synthesis defines five candidate failed-step classes and specifies the comparisons, local-exposure or step-resolved measurements, perturbations, orthogonal readouts, and alternative tests needed for each. Mechanistic attribution is most secure when the proposed bottleneck is measured directly, manipulated experimentally, and distinguished from credible alternatives. Clinical application will additionally require context-of-use-specific evidence of analytical reproducibility, reference treatments, prespecified acceptance criteria, and association with clinically relevant outcomes.
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.