ReviewBiomedical microdevices2026
Engineering Lung-on-a-chip microdevices for respiratory disease modelling and drug testing: A fit-for-purpose framework for design and translational validation.
Review in Biomedical microdevices, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Lung-on-a-chip (LoAC) technology has emerged as a human-relevant microphysiological approach for respiratory disease modelling and preclinical drug evaluation. However, substantial variation in device architecture, membrane properties, fluidic conditions, mechanical actuation, cellular composition, sensing and manufacturing limits cross-platform comparison and translational confidence. This structured narrative review examines LoAC systems from a fit-for-purpose engineering perspective, emphasising how quantitative design parameters influence biological performance within defined contexts of use. Recent platforms demonstrate application-dependent trade-offs in membrane and interface design, flow and shear conditions, breathing-related strain, cellular complexity, analytical accessibility, scalability and reproducibility. Evidence from cancer, inhalation toxicology, infection and radiation-injury models further shows that engineering choices can alter barrier function, inflammatory responses, cellular differentiation and therapeutic sensitivity rather than merely improve physiological resemblance. To support practical assessment of translational readiness, we propose an evidence-gated framework comprising engineering verification, biological qualification, disease or pharmacological validation, human concordance, and deployment and regulatory readiness. Importantly, physiological resemblance is distinguished from demonstrated concordance with patient-derived or clinical data and, where required by the context of use, from clinically anchored predictive performance for therapeutic or toxicological outcomes. Translation will require predefined context-of-use (CoU) criteria, quantitative engineering specifications, appropriate reference comparators, clinically anchored benchmarking, quality-controlled manufacturing, standardised reporting and inter-laboratory reproducibility. Prioritising validated, fit-for-purpose performance over maximal complexity may provide a more credible pathway for advancing LoAC platforms toward reliable respiratory research, drug development and regulatory decision-support applications.
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.