ReviewExpert reviews in molecular medicine2026
Alternative
Review in Expert reviews in molecular medicine, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAlternative models are tools to replace and reduce the number of animals used in biomedical sciences, for either research or tests of industrial products. Several new alternative models have been developed in the most diverse fields. Their implementation has led to significant advances in the dermatological cosmetic industry, enabling chemical and molecular screening without animal use. However, limitations remain, particularly regarding tissue microenvironment complexity and systemic metabolic responses.
objectivesThe objective of this viewpoint is to present the existing alternative models available for dermatological sciences, evaluate their applications and discuss their advantages and disadvantages, as well as the future perspectives for safe clinical translation.
resultsIn vitro and in silico approaches provide reliable platforms for toxicity, irritation, sensitization, and topical efficacy in cosmetic and dermatological research. Advanced systems, including human skin equivalents, bioprinted skin, and skin-on-a-chip platforms, enhance physiological relevance and mechanistic insight compared with two-dimensional cultures. However, limitations related to tissue complexity, systemic metabolic integration, standardization, and scalability still restrict their ability to fully replace in vivo models.
conclusionTherefore, it is expected that future developments in alternative technologies will further enable the reduction of animal model use, while still providing reliable and translatable knowledge applicable across scientific disciplines.
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.