ArticleNeuroscience applied2026
Critical uncertainties in preclinical research: Navigating trust, technology, and ethics.
Article in Neuroscience applied, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal use in preclinical research is facing growing scientific, ethical and political scrutiny in Europe. Researchers are increasingly required to justify in vivo studies and are urged to replace them with New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), even where these are not yet fit for purpose. In response to this pressure, members of the COST Action CA20135 "Improving biomedical research by automated behaviour monitoring in the animal home-cage" (TEATIME) held a Strategic Foresight Workshop in March 2025 to examine the future of animal research in Europe. The resulting scenarios reveal risks of over-regulation, outsourcing animal experiments to countries with weaker standards, and erosion of research quality, but also highlight opportunities to combine validated NAMs with high-quality in vivo work under robust ethical oversight. This short communication summarises the workshop's main insights and argues for evidence-based, transparent and internationally aligned regulation that protects both animal welfare and the scientific value of preclinical 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.