Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41465854›Full record

ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025

AI-Enabled Reduction of Animal Use in Cardiovascular Translational Medicine: Regulatory and Technological Perspectives.

Rasit Dinc, Nurittin Ardic

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Life (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Rasit DincINVAMED Medical Innovation Institute, One World Trade Center, 85th Floor, 285 Fulton Street, New York, NY 10007, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1382-0262
Nurittin ArdicMed-International UK Health Agency Ltd., Leicestershire LE10 0BZ, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-2726-7990

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAnimal studies remain fundamental to cardiovascular drug and device development, yet their ability to predict human responses is increasingly being questioned. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s April 2025 roadmap supports alternative testing approaches that strategically reduce animal use while increasing human relevance by combining laboratory methods, computer simulations, and artificial intelligence. This review examines AI-enabled alternative methodologies for cardiovascular safety assessment within established validation frameworks and regulatory acceptance programs. We describe machine learning approaches for predicting cardiac safety risks, automated analysis of human heart cells, and patient-specific computer simulations for evaluating medical devices. These tools can improve our understanding of biological mechanisms, focus limited animal studies on critical questions, and accelerate decision-making. Regulatory acceptance requires rigorous validation appropriate to each specific use and decision context.

conclusionWe outline practical steps for establishing credibility, including transparent data documentation, independent testing, and identifying where models can be reliably applied, and identify remaining challenges in data standardization and regulatory readiness. With ongoing alignment between regulators, standards bodies, and product developers, these alternative approaches could significantly reduce reliance on animal testing in cardiovascular research while maintaining or improving the quality of evidence.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecardiovascular safetydigital twinsin vitro–in silico translationNew Approach Methodologies (NAMs)regulatory science

Identifiers

PMID41465854
PMCPMC12734360

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.