ReviewDrug discovery today2015
Improving the predictive value of interventional animal models data.
Review in Drug discovery today, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dietary polyphenols maintain human health through modulation of gut microbiota.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Chemical entity normalization for successful translational development of Alzheimer's disease and dementia therapeutics.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2024Article
- Applications of Induced Pluripotent Stem Cell-Derived Glia in Brain Disease Research and Treatment.Handbook of experimental pharmacology · 2023Review
- Utilising Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells in Neurodegenerative Disease Research: Focus on Glia.International journal of molecular sciences · 2021Review
- Levelling the Translational Gap for Animal to Human Efficacy Data.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2020Review
- Menagerie: A text-mining tool to support animal-human translation in neurodegeneration research.PloS one · 2019Article
- In the name of reproducibility.Lab animal · 2018Article
- Immune responses to the real world.Lab animal · 2017Article
- Established patterns of animal study design undermine translation of disease-modifying therapies for Parkinson's disease.PloS one · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
For many chronic diseases, translational success using the animal model paradigm has reached an impasse. Using Alzheimer's disease as an example, this review employs a networks-based method to assess repeatability of outcomes across species, by intervention and mechanism. Over 75% of animal studies reported an improved outcome. Strain background was a significant potential confounder. Five percent of interventions had been tested across animals and humans, or examined across three or more animal models. Positive outcomes across species emerged for donepezil, memantine and exercise. Repeatable positive outcomes in animals were identified for the amyloid hypothesis and three additional mechanisms. This approach supports in silico reduction of positive outcomes bias in animal studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.