Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19146696›Full record

ReviewPhilosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM2009

Are animal models predictive for humans?

Niall Shanks, Ray Greek, Jean Greek

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 293 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
293citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–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

293 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article

233 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Niall ShanksAmericans For Medical Advancement, 2251 Refugio Rd Goleta, CA 93117, USA. niall.shanks@wichita.edu
Ray Greek
Jean Greek

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It is one of the central aims of the philosophy of science to elucidate the meanings of scientific terms and also to think critically about their application. The focus of this essay is the scientific term predict and whether there is credible evidence that animal models, especially in toxicology and pathophysiology, can be used to predict human outcomes. Whether animals can be used to predict human response to drugs and other chemicals is apparently a contentious issue. However, when one empirically analyzes animal models using scientific tools they fall far short of being able to predict human responses. This is not surprising considering what we have learned from fields such evolutionary and developmental biology, gene regulation and expression, epigenetics, complexity theory, and comparative genomics.

Indexed as

ForecastingModels, AnimalAnimal ExperimentationAnimalsHumans

Identifiers

PMID19146696
PMCPMC2642860

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.