Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39839731›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2024

Protocol for the systematic review of age and sex in preclinical models of age-correlated diseases.

Kai Diederich, Matthias Steinfath, Alexandra Bannach-Brown, Bettina Bert, Daniel Butzke, Paul Lucas Wildner, Maximilian Wurm, Ines Schadock, Céline Heinl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Special Issue "Molecules at Play in Neurological Diseases".Current issues in molecular biology · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
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

9 authors.

Kai DiederichGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6550-9460
Matthias SteinfathGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Alexandra Bannach-BrownQUEST Center, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3161-1395
Bettina BertGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Daniel ButzkeGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Paul Lucas WildnerCharite University Hospital, Berlin, Germany.
Maximilian WurmCharite University Hospital, Berlin, Germany.
Ines SchadockGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6717-6276
Céline HeinlGerman Centre for the Protection of Laboratory Animals (Bf3R), German Federal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR), Berlin, Berlin, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3369-1939

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The translation of animal-based biomedical research into clinical research is often inadequate. Maximizing translation should be central to animal research on human diseases, guiding researchers in study design and animal model selection. However, practical considerations often drive the choice of animal model, which may not always reflect key patient characteristics, such as sex and age, impacting the disease's course. Despite diseases affecting both sexes, researchers frequently use male mice. To address this imbalance, journals and funding agencies have begun questioning the sex of animals used in studies and issued new guidelines. Conversely, the age of rodents is rarely discussed, even though many diseases primarily affect older patients. Young mice are commonly used, even in studies of diseases affecting older adults. Systematic comparisons between the age of rodents used and the age of patients in clinical trials are lacking. In this review, we systematically analyze the age and sex of mice used to model the five leading causes of global disability-adjusted life-years over the age of 75. We compare the results with the age and sex of patients in clinical trials focusing on Alzheimer's disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes mellitus, ischemic heart disease, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We also analyze whether the age of the mice used has changed over the past decade. By systematically assessing the age and sex of the mice, we aim to initiate a discussion on the appropriate choice of animal model to improve the translatability of research results.

Indexed as

AgingDisease Models, AnimalAge FactorsAnimalsFemaleHumansMaleMiceSex FactorsSystematic Reviews as Topicageexperimental animalssexsystematic reviewtranslation

Identifiers

PMID39839731
PMCPMC11747299

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.