ReviewFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology2026
Designing the matrix: extracellular matrix-informed strategies for bioengineered cancer models.
Review in Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bioengineered three-dimensional (3D) cancer models have improved the replication of tumour architecture and microenvironmental complexity, yet their predictive value and reproducibility remain inconsistent. A key reason is that extracellular matrix (ECM) context is often treated as a background culture condition rather than as an explicit experimental variable. Cancer cells respond not only to dimensionality, but also to coupled biochemical, structural, mechanical and dynamic matrix cues, including ligand presentation, fibre architecture, porosity, stiffness, viscoelasticity, degradability and remodelling. In this mini-review, we examine ECM-mimicking cancer models through a materials science-informed lens and argue that matrix selection should be guided by model purpose rather than perceived physiological complexity alone. We discuss tissue-derived matrices for preserving tissue-specific and patient-relevant cues, natural and semi-synthetic hydrogels for balancing biological context with usability, synthetic matrices for mechanistic dissection, transport-aware systems for drug-response studies and dynamic hydrogels for modelling time-dependent matrix remodelling. We propose that ECM mimicry should move from a descriptive label to a hypothesis-driven design principle. Making matrix design explicit will improve comparison across models, reduce ambiguity in interpreting cancer phenotypes and strengthen the mechanistic and translational relevance of
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.