Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42004644›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in cellular neuroscience2026

From mice to clinical relevance: humanizing neuroscience with human-based model systems.

Aniella Vanessa Bak, Karen M J van Loo, Deborah Kronenberg-Versteeg, Henner Koch

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in cellular neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Aniella Vanessa BakDepartment of Epileptology, Neurology, RWTH University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Karen M J van LooDepartment of Epileptology, Neurology, RWTH University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.
Deborah Kronenberg-VersteegDepartment of Cellular Neurology, Hertie Institute for Clinical Brain Research, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Henner KochDepartment of Epileptology, Neurology, RWTH University Hospital Aachen, Aachen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preclinical research in neuroscience has traditionally relied on animal models to investigate disease mechanisms and develop new therapeutic strategies. While these models are valuable to gain mechanistic insights, their translational power remains limited due to interspecific differences and, hence, frequent failures in clinical translation. The uniqueness of the human brain calls for alternative approaches in neuroscientific research that more faithfully capture human physiology and pathology. In recent years, a variety of human-based model systems have emerged, ranging from dissociated neuronal cultures and stem cell-derived platforms, including organoids, to micro-engineered devices and human brain slice approaches. Each model offers distinct advantages and limitations in recapitulating neural circuits, disease mechanisms, and therapeutic responses. In this review, we critically discuss the merits and drawbacks of animal models, outline the historic development and current applications of human-based systems, and highlight their potential to complement or replace animal-based models. We further explore current challenges in human brain research, including human variability, technical challenges, as well as ethical considerations and regulatory hurdles. Together, these advances represent a shift toward more predictive, human, and ethically responsible neuroscientific research that could aid in decreasing the translational gap.

Indexed as

brain-on-a-chiphuman-based modelshuman brain tissueIPSCorganoidspecies differencestranslational neuroscience

Identifiers

PMID42004644
PMCPMC13083016

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.