ReviewMammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society2025
Harmonizing mouse anatomy terminology: a common language?
Review in Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The mouse remains the principal animal model for investigating human diseases due, among other reasons, to its anatomical similarities to humans. Despite its widespread use, the assumption that mouse anatomy is a fully established field with standardized and universally accepted terminology is misleading. Many phenotypic anatomical annotations do not refer to the authority or origin of the terminology used, while others inappropriately adopt outdated or human-centric nomenclature. This inconsistency is further exacerbated by the limited availability of comprehensive anatomical references, often compelling researchers to rely on "do-it-yourself" anatomical interpretations when characterizing disease models-an approach that increases the risk of inaccuracies in the absence of expert anatomical guidance. To address this critical gap, we propose the formation of expert working groups comprising comparative anatomists and disease model developers. These groups would be responsible for systematically reviewing the anatomical literature of each mouse organ system and producing consensus-based terminologies aligned with the Nomina Anatomica Veterinaria (NAV), the authoritative standard for quadrupedal species. Such harmonization efforts would not only improve the consistency and reliability of anatomical descriptions in mouse models but also enhance the integration and interoperability of anatomical data across biomedical ontologies and databases, facilitating more robust data mining and translational research.
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.