Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 410

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

StellaTUM: current consensus and discussion on pancreatic stellate cell research

Open access
Erkan, Mert, Adler, Guido, Apte, Minoti V, Bachem, Max G, Buchholz, Malte, Detlefsen, Sönke, Esposito, Irene, Friess, Helmut, Gress, Thomas M, Habisch, Hans-Joerg, Hwang, Rosa F, Jaster, Robert, Kleeff, Jörg, Klöppel, Günter, Kordes, Claus, Logsdon, Craig D, Masamune, Atsushi, Michalski, Christoph W, Oh, Junseo, Phillips, Phoebe A, Pinzani, Massimo, Reiser-Erkan, Carolin, Tsukamoto, Hidekazu, Wilson, Jeremy·2012·Gut

Abstract

The field of pancreatic stellate cell (PSC) biology is very young, as the essential in-vitro tools to study these cells (ie, methods to isolate and culture PSC) were only developed as recently as in 1998. Nonetheless, there has been an exponential increase in research output in this field over the past decade, with numerous research groups around the world focusing their energies into elucidating the biology and function of these cells. It is now well established that PSC are responsible for producing the stromal reaction (fibrosis) of two major diseases of the pancreas—chronic pancreatitis and pancreatic cancer. Despite exponentially increasing data, the methods for studying PSC remain variable. Although within individual laboratories methods are consistent, different methodologies used by various research groups make it difficult to compare results and conclusions. This article is not a review article on the functions of PSC. Instead, members of the Pancreatic Star Alliance (http://www.pancreaticstaralliance.com) discuss here and consolidate current knowledge, to outline and delineate areas of consensus or otherwise (eg, with regard to methodological approaches) and, more importantly, to identify essential directions for future research.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301220

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 410

Metadata

Authors
Erkan, M., Adler, G., Apte, M. V., Bachem, M. G., Buchholz, M., Detlefsen, S., Esposito, I., Friess, H., Gress, T. M., Habisch, H.-J., Hwang, R. F., Jaster, R., Kleeff, J., Klöppel, G., Kordes, C., Logsdon, C. D., Masamune, A., Michalski, C. W., Oh, J., Phillips, P. A., Pinzani, M., Reiser-Erkan, C., Tsukamoto, H., & Wilson, J.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2011-11-24
Volume
61
Issue
2
Pages
172-178
ISSN
  • 0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-3288
OpenAlex
W2160152459
Cited by
410
References
5
FWCI
26.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: StellaTUM: current consensus and discussion on pancreatic stellate cell research. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301220
The paper
Erkan, M., Adler, G., Apte, M. V., Bachem, M. G., Buchholz, M., Detlefsen, S., Esposito, I., Friess, H., Gress, T. M., Habisch, H.-J., Hwang, R. F., Jaster, R., Kleeff, J., Klöppel, G., Kordes, C., Logsdon, C. D., Masamune, A., Michalski, C. W., Oh, J., . . . Wilson, J. (2012). StellaTUM: current consensus and discussion on pancreatic stellate cell research. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301220

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.