ArticleFASEB bioAdvances2026
The Scientific Case for Animal Models: A Perspective From Musculoskeletal Researchers.
Article in FASEB bioAdvances, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Scientific Case for Animal Models: A Perspective From Musculoskeletal Researchers.FASEB bioAdvances · 2026Article
- Advancing the 3Rs in bone tissue engineering: emergingFrontiers in physiology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has launched a major initiative to expand human-based New Approach Methodologies (NAMs) in biomedical research and reduce reliance on animal models. While NAMs offer powerful complementary tools, animal-based research remains indispensable in musculoskeletal science for understanding complex cellular and systemic processes, disease onset and progression, and developing effective therapies. Foundational knowledge of embryonic development, disease mechanisms, tissue regeneration, gene function, and systemic pharmacology has emerged from animal models and will continue to do so. This review underscores the essential role of animal models in five key areas of musculoskeletal biology: osteoporosis, osteoarthritis, bone fracture repair and regeneration, bone cancer, and Inherited Skeletal Disorders (ISDs). We also examine NAMs including organoids, engineered scaffolds, organ-on-chip platforms, and Artificial Intelligence (AI)/computational modeling, highlighting their strengths in mechanistic and high-throughput studies but also their limitations in replicating in vivo structural, physiological, biomechanical, and systemic complexity. Animal models remain the gold standard for exploring disease mechanisms, testing preclinical therapeutic and diagnostic efficacy and safety, and translating discoveries into clinical practice. Rather than replacing animal research, NAMs should be integrated as complementary approaches to advance understanding and innovation. Curtailing animal research would jeopardize medical progress and hinder life-saving interventions for humans and animals alike. This review aims to inform the public and policymakers on the continued necessity of ethically conducted animal research as a cornerstone of musculoskeletal health.
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.