ReviewLife (Basel, Switzerland)2025
AI-Enabled Reduction of Animal Use in Cardiovascular Translational Medicine: Regulatory and Technological Perspectives.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Large Animal Models for Preclinical Evaluation of Heart Valve Prostheses, Left Ventricular Assist Devices and Total Artificial Hearts: A Narrative Review.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.