ReviewBiology2023
Animal Disease Models and Patient-iPS-Cell-Derived In Vitro Disease Models for Cardiovascular Biology-How Close to Disease?
Review in Biology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reframing sepsis research through translational integrative models.Journal of translational internal medicine · 2026Article
- Neuroprotective effects of traditional Chinese medicine using zebrafish models - a review.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Human induced pluripotent stem cell-derived cardiomyocytes (iPSC-CMs) for modeling cardiac arrhythmias: strengths, challenges and potential solutions.Frontiers in physiology · 2024Review
- Artificial Intelligence in Regenerative Medicine: Applications and Implications.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
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
Currently, zebrafish, rodents, canines, and pigs are the primary disease models used in cardiovascular research. In general, larger animals have more physiological similarities to humans, making better disease models. However, they can have restricted or limited use because they are difficult to handle and maintain. Moreover, animal welfare laws regulate the use of experimental animals. Different species have different mechanisms of disease onset. Organs in each animal species have different characteristics depending on their evolutionary history and living environment. For example, mice have higher heart rates than humans. Nonetheless, preclinical studies have used animals to evaluate the safety and efficacy of human drugs because no other complementary method exists. Hence, we need to evaluate the similarities and differences in disease mechanisms between humans and experimental animals. The translation of animal data to humans contributes to eliminating the gap between these two. In vitro disease models have been used as another alternative for human disease models since the discovery of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPSCs). Human cardiomyocytes have been generated from patient-derived iPSCs, which are genetically identical to the derived patients. Researchers have attempted to develop in vivo mimicking 3D culture systems. In this review, we explore the possible uses of animal disease models, iPSC-derived in vitro disease models, humanized animals, and the recent challenges of machine learning. The combination of these methods will make disease models more similar to human disease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.