ReviewInternational journal of molecular sciences2021
Humanized Mice as a Tool to Study Sepsis-More Than Meets the Eye.
Review in International journal of molecular sciences, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Optimization of Preclinical Rodent Research Models of Human Shock: Part One Intra-Abdominal Sepsis.Shock (Augusta, Ga.) · 2026Review
- New and Emerging Research Models for Sepsis.Cells · 2026Review
- Reframing sepsis research through translational integrative models.Journal of translational internal medicine · 2026Article
- Immunometabolic Reprogramming in Experimental Sepsis: A Driver of Multiple Organ Dysfunction Syndrome.Journal of inflammation research · 2026Review
- The Clinical View of Sepsis-Associated AKI: How Basic Science Can Help Solve This Problem.Seminars in nephrology · 2025Review
- Immunodynamic Disruption in Sepsis: Mechanisms and Strategies for Personalized Immunomodulation.Biomedicines · 2025Review
- Targeting synaptic plasticity to bridge translational gaps in sepsis-associated encephalopathy.Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2025Review
- Reconditioned monocytes are immunomodulatory and regulate inflammatory environment in sepsis.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Advances in Rodent Experimental Models of Sepsis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2023Review
- The leaky gut and the gut microbiome in sepsis - targets in research and treatment.Clinical science (London, England : 1979) · 2023Article
- Impact of High-Density Lipoproteins on Sepsis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Review
- Review
- The Multifaceted Biology of PCSK9.Endocrine reviews · 2022Review
- Sepsis Disrupts Mitochondrial Function and Diaphragm Morphology.Frontiers in physiology · 2021Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background. Repetitive animal studies that have disappointed upon translation into clinical therapies have led to an increased appreciation of humanized mice as a remedy to the shortcomings of rodent-based models. However, their limitations have to be understood in depth. (2) Methods. This is a narrative, comprehensive review of humanized mice and sepsis literature to understand the model's benefits and shortcomings. (3) Results: Studies involving humanized models of sepsis include bacterial, viral, and protozoan etiology. Humanized mice provided several unique insights into the etiology and natural history of sepsis and are particularly useful in studying Ebola, and certain viral and protozoan infections. However, studies are relatively sparse and based on several different models of sepsis and humanized animals. (4) Conclusions. The utilization of humanized mice as a model for sepsis presents complex limitations that, once surpassed, hold some potential for the advancement of sepsis etiology and treatment.
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.