ReviewILAR journal2014
The significance of meaning: why do over 90% of behavioral neuroscience results fail to translate to humans, and what can we do to fix it?
Review in ILAR journal, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 91 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
91 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Methodological standards, quality of reporting and regulatory compliance in animal research on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: a systematic review.BMJ open science · 2019Pooled it
- Comparative insights into insula structure and function.Nature neuroscience · 2026Review
- Article
- Mapping the ethical and sustainable transition in toxicology: a bibliometric analysis and a review of new approach methodologies.Archives of toxicology · 2026Review
- Characterization of cell-type specific knockout of different elements of the endocannabinoid system in cortical glutamatergic neurons in the context of stress-induced behavioral phenotype.Journal of cannabis research · 2025Article
- Accurate Tracking of Locomotory Kinematics in Mice Moving Freely in Three-Dimensional Environments.eNeuro · 2025Article
- Review
- Illuminating the Shadows of Neuroscience: How Curiosity and Courage Redefine Research Models and Mentorship.eNeuro · 2025Article
- The utility of animal models to inform the next generation of human space exploration.NPJ microgravity · 2025Review
- Social context restructures behavioral syntax in mice.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2025Article
- Crossing the Valley of Death in Spinal Cord Injury: Learning from Successful Translators.Neurotrauma reports · 2025Review
- Nebulized vasopressin penetrates CSF and improves social cognition without inducing aggression in a rhesus monkey model of autism.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2024Article
- Animal models in neuroscience with alternative approaches: Evolutionary, biomedical, and ethical perspectives.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2024Review
- Recent advances and current status of gene therapy for epilepsy.World journal of pediatrics : WJP · 2024Review
- Artificial Intelligence as a Replacement for Animal Experiments in Neurology: Potential, Progress, and Challenges.Neurology international · 2024Article
- Prefrontal cortex neurons encode ambient light intensity differentially across regions and layers.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Genomic evidence for the suitability of Göttingen Minipigs with a rare seizure phenotype as a model for human epilepsy.Neurogenetics · 2024Article
- Understanding Individual Subject Differences through Large Behavioral Datasets: Analytical and Statistical Considerations.Perspectives on behavior science · 2024Article
- The cell-permeant antioxidant D-thiol ester D-cysteine ethyl ester overcomes physical dependence to morphine in male Sprague Dawley rats.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2024Article
- Statistical power and false positive rates for interdependent outcomes are strongly influenced by test type: Implications for behavioral neuroscience.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2023Article
31 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
The vast majority of drugs entering human trials fail. This problem (called "attrition") is widely recognized as a public health crisis, and has been discussed openly for the last two decades. Multiple recent reviews argue that animals may be just too different physiologically, anatomically, and psychologically from humans to be able to predict human outcomes, essentially questioning the justification of basic biomedical research in animals. This review argues instead that the philosophy and practice of experimental design and analysis is so different in basic animal work and human clinical trials that an animal experiment (as currently conducted) cannot reasonably predict the outcome of a human trial. Thus, attrition does reflect a lack of predictive validity of animal experiments, but it would be a tragic mistake to conclude that animal models cannot show predictive validity. A variety of contributing factors to poor validity are reviewed. The need to adopt methods and models that are highly specific (i.e., which can identify true negative results) in order to complement the current preponderance of highly sensitive methods (which are prone to false positive results) is emphasized. Concepts in biomarker-based medicine are offered as a potential solution, and changes in the use of animal models required to embrace a translational biomarker-based approach are outlined. In essence, this review advocates a fundamental shift, where we treat every aspect of an animal experiment that we can as if it was a clinical trial in a human population. However, it is unrealistic to expect researchers to adopt a new methodology that cannot be empirically justified until a successful human trial. "Validation with known failures" is proposed as a solution. Thus new methods or models can be compared against existing ones using a drug that has translated (a known positive) and one that has failed (a known negative). Current methods should incorrectly identify both as effective, but a more specific method should identify the negative compound correctly. By using a library of known failures we can thereby empirically test the impact of suggested solutions such as enrichment, controlled heterogenization, biomarker-based models, or reverse-translated measures.
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.