Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18027253›Full record

ReviewMedical mycology2007

Animal models: an important tool in mycology.

Javier Capilla, Karl V Clemons, David A Stevens

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medical mycology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed
–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

41 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Journal of medical microbiology · 2026
    Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Models for Inducing Experimental Cryptococcosis in Mice.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024
    Article
  9. Antifungal peptides from living organisms.Frontiers in microbiology · 2024
    Review
  10. Article
  11. Coccidioidomycosis Osteoarticular Dissemination.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. The Added Value of Longitudinal Imaging for PreclinicalAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2020
    Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2020
    Article
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

3 authors.

Javier CapillaCalifornia Institute for Medical Research, San Jose, USA.
Karl V Clemons
David A Stevens

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal models of fungal infections are, and will remain, a key tool in the advancement of the medical mycology. Many different types of animal models of fungal infection have been developed, with murine models the most frequently used, for studies of pathogenesis, virulence, immunology, diagnosis, and therapy. The ability to control numerous variables in performing the model allows us to mimic human disease states and quantitatively monitor the course of the disease. However, no single model can answer all questions and different animal species or different routes of infection can show somewhat different results. Thus, the choice of which animal model to use must be made carefully, addressing issues of the type of human disease to mimic, the parameters to follow and collection of the appropriate data to answer those questions being asked. This review addresses a variety of uses for animal models in medical mycology. It focuses on the most clinically important diseases affecting humans and cites various examples of the different types of studies that have been performed. Overall, animal models of fungal infection will continue to be valuable tools in addressing questions concerning fungal infections and contribute to our deeper understanding of how these infections occur, progress and can be controlled and eliminated.

Indexed as

Disease Models, AnimalAnimalsHumansMycologyMycoses

Identifiers

PMID18027253
PMCPMC7107685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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 OpenQuestion graph.