ReviewILAR journal2021
Bioethical, Reproducibility, and Translational Challenges of Animal Models.
Review in ILAR journal, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- MyBioScope: a new frontier in gut microbiome and health research.Bioresources and bioprocessing · 2026Article
- Evaluating Animal Models for Improved Hemodialysis Vascular Access: A Focus on Arteriovenous Fistula.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2025Review
- Targeted Cancer Therapy-on-A-Chip.Advanced healthcare materials · 2024Review
- Organ-on-a-chip: future of female reproductive pathophysiological models.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2024Review
- Article
- Article
- Optimizing environmental enrichment for Sprague Dawley rats: Exemplary insights into the liver proteome.PloS one · 2024Article
- Bridging the gap: a translational perspective in spinal cord injury.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2024Review
- Dose-dependent progression of multiple low-dose streptozotocin-induced diabetes in mice.Physiological genomics · 2023Article
- Dose-dependent progression of multiple low dose streptozotocin-induced diabetes in mice.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- State-of-the-art review and update ofFrontiers in pediatrics · 2023Review
- Conservation Biology and Reproduction in a Time of Developmental Plasticity.Biomolecules · 2022Review
- Longitudinal evaluation of five nasopharyngeal carcinoma animal models on the microPET/MR platform.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2022Article
- Environmental Enrichment for Rats and Mice Housed in Laboratories: A Metareview.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Review
- Mission Creep or Mission Lapse? Scientific Review in Research Oversight.AJOB empirical bioethicsArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is no prescribed stage or standardized point at which an animal model protocol is reviewed for reproducibility and translatability. The method of review for a reproducible and translatable study is not consistently documented in peer literature, and this is a major challenge for those working with animal models of human diseases. If the study is ill designed, it is impossible to perform an accurate harm/benefit analysis. In addition, there may be an ethical challenge if the work is not reproducible and translatable. Animal welfare regulations and other documents of control clearly state the role of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees are to look at science justification within the context of animal welfare. This article, concentrating on models not governed by regulations, outlines issues and offers recommendations for refining animal model review with a goal to improve study reproducibility and translatability.
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.