Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33240763›Full record

ReviewAdvanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany)2020

Is it Time for Reviewer 3 to Request Human Organ Chip Experiments Instead of Animal Validation Studies?

Donald E Ingber

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 129 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
129citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
15.0field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

129 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 273 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Animal models accurately representing acute liver failure (Review).International journal of molecular medicine · 2026
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Microphysiological systems for metastasis research: a stepwise approach.Cellular oncology (Dordrecht, Netherlands) · 2025
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  20. Review

69 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

1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.

Donald E IngberWyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering at Harvard University Boston MA 02115 USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4319-6520
Boston Children's Hospital · US

Funding

Lung-on-a-Chip Disease Models for Efficacy Testing (COVID-19 Competitive Revision)UH3HL141797 · NHLBI · HARVARD UNIVERSITY · PI INGBER, DONALD E · 2019 to 2021
$5.2M
NHLBI NIH HHS UH3 HL141797
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For the past century, experimental data obtained from animal studies have been required by reviewers of scientific articles and grant applications to validate the physiological relevance of in vitro results. At the same time, pharmaceutical researchers and regulatory agencies recognize that results from preclinical animal models frequently fail to predict drug responses in humans. This

Indexed as

microfluidicsmicrophysiological systemsorganoidsorgan‐on‐a‐chippreclinical studies

Identifiers

PMID33240763
PMCPMC7675190
OpenAlexW3092983038

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.