ArticleCureus2025
In Silico Research Is Rewriting the Rules of Drug Development: Is It the End of Human Trials?
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nanoparticulate and Hydrogel Vehicles for Stimuli-Responsive and Sustained Controlled Release of Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence as a Disruptive Force in Pharmaceutical Innovation: Transforming Discovery, Development, and Manufacturing.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
- Regulation of TGF-β and BMP Signaling by Natural Triterpene Compounds in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension (PAH).Current issues in molecular biology · 2025Article
- Digital Twins in Translational Research and Health Care: An Anthropological Perspective.Ethics & human researchArticle
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
Recent advances in computational biology, artificial intelligence (AI), and regulatory science are rapidly displacing the traditional reliance on animal and early-phase human trials in drug development. In April 2025, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration announced a landmark decision to phase out mandatory animal testing for many drug types, signaling a paradigm shift toward in silico methodologies. This editorial explores how computer-based models, especially digital twins, are emerging as the fourth pillar of biomedical science, capable of simulating complex human systems with remarkable accuracy. Drawing on real-world examples from oncology, neurology, and regulatory submissions, the editorial argues that in silico tools are no longer ancillary but central to modern research. These technologies enable rapid, ethical, and cost-effective drug discovery while offering personalized therapeutic insights. As machine learning, multi-omics integration, and predictive simulations mature, their regulatory credibility grows, particularly in initiatives such as model-informed drug development and digital therapeutics. The editorial concludes by urging the adoption of standardized frameworks, explainable AI, and infrastructure investment to ensure in silico research fulfills its transformative potential. Within a decade, failure to employ these methods may no longer be merely outdated, it may be indefensible.
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.