Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41173006›Full record

ReviewStem cell reports2025

The ethical aspects of human organ-on-chip models: A mapping review.

Jesse Weidema, Martine de Vries, Christine Mummery, Nienke de Graeff

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Stem cell reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
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

4 authors.

Jesse WeidemaMedical Ethics and Health Law, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands. Electronic address: j.j.weidema@lumc.nl.
Martine de VriesMedical Ethics and Health Law, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Christine MummeryAnatomy and Embryology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.
Nienke de GraeffMedical Ethics and Health Law, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Organ-on-chips (OoCs) are controlled microfluidic platforms that replicate specific organ-level functionalities and pathological processes using cultured cells. OoCs promise to enhance drug discovery, reduce dependence on animal models, and enable personalized treatments. However, OoCs also introduce ethical challenges. This article provides a mapping review of the philosophical and ethical issues associated with developing and using OoCs. Given the limited literature on OoC ethics, the review takes a comparative analytical approach, drawing on organoid, digital twin, and precision medicine literature. Ethical issues are categorized across three consecutive phases-research, clinical testing, and implementation. Nine key themes are identified: privacy and confidentiality, informed consent, evidence, ontology and moral status, animal experimentation, evidence standards, patient care, intellectual property and commercialization, and distributive justice. Overall, the review highlights several key challenges that require further normative inquiry and hold significance for both research and policy. These include underrepresented groups in OoC research, complexities and limitations related to different consent models, the need for clear criteria to determine evidence standards for replacing animal models, accountability in the standardization of OoC research, and sustainability.

Indexed as

Lab-On-A-Chip DevicesAnimalsHumansInformed ConsentOrganoidsdigital twinsethicsinformed consentorganoidsorgan-on-chipspersonalized medicineprecision medicinestem cell research

Identifiers

PMID41173006
PMCPMC12790741

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.