Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41264156›Full record

ReviewJournal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia2025

Little women: the relevance and reliance on mouse models for mammary gland research and next steps for translation.

Laura B Bjerre, Silke B Chalmers, Felicity M Davis

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of mammary gland biology and neoplasia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Laura B BjerreDepartment of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.
Silke B ChalmersDepartment of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. silke@biomed.au.dk.
Felicity M DavisDepartment of Biomedicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. felicity@biomed.au.dk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The neglect of research into women's health and female biology has had major impacts for the fields of mammary biology and cancer. A quarter of the way through the twenty-first century, we still lack basic knowledge regarding the formation and function of the organ that gives its name to all mammals, and which provides important health benefits for children and their breastfeeding parent through the creation and delivery of breast milk. In this review, we highlight key similarities and differences in mouse and human mammary glands, and discuss how both systems of investigation are important and necessary to fill outstanding knowledge gaps. We discuss important discoveries that have arisen through mouse models as well as methodological advances that have enabled more widespread investigations in human samples. Finally, we contend that the translatability of mammary gland research requires thoughtful design, careful evaluation and continued review, irrespective of the system of investigation.

Indexed as

Mammary Glands, AnimalMammary Glands, HumanAnimalsDisease Models, AnimalFemaleHumansLactationMiceTranslational Research, BiomedicalDevelopmentInvolutionLactationMammary GlandMouse ModelsPuberty

Identifiers

PMID41264156
PMCPMC12634731

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.