2007
DOI: 10.1002/ar.20572
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Development of the Pulmonary Vein

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
(28 reference statements)
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Despite this obvious clinical relevance, the long-established morphological examination of the development of the inflow has yet to produce consensus, as illustrated by the ongoing discussion regarding the relation between development of the pulmonary vein and the systemic venous tributaries [12] , [13] . The reasons for such ongoing disputes lie in part in the lack of use of molecular markers to distinguish between cell types [14] , but also reflect the difficulty of communicating complex three-dimensional processes. Together, these ongoing problems prevent the emergence of a clear morphological concept of development of the venous inflows that could serve as a scaffold for further study.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Despite this obvious clinical relevance, the long-established morphological examination of the development of the inflow has yet to produce consensus, as illustrated by the ongoing discussion regarding the relation between development of the pulmonary vein and the systemic venous tributaries [12] , [13] . The reasons for such ongoing disputes lie in part in the lack of use of molecular markers to distinguish between cell types [14] , but also reflect the difficulty of communicating complex three-dimensional processes. Together, these ongoing problems prevent the emergence of a clear morphological concept of development of the venous inflows that could serve as a scaffold for further study.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We only partly agree with the first sentence of the Letter to the Editor by Moorman and Anderson [2]. Disputation alone is not sufficient for progress in science and may even be harmful if combined with dogmatism, as is shown dramatically throughout the history of science.…”
mentioning
confidence: 65%
“…Moreover, we disagree with the alleged arguments for lack of balance in our Review [1], which in our opinion provides a careful balance of citations and opinions that are involved in the current controversy, whereas their criticism does not give full credit to the findings of our group. Here [2] and elsewhere [3][4][5] they either only antagonize our work based on misinterpretations of our concepts, or do not cite it at all. We attempt to cite objectively original basic scientific results but provide our own interpretation of those data without neglecting other views.…”
mentioning
confidence: 84%
See 1 more Smart Citation