ReviewPflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology2026
First-in-human to proof-of-concept: why experimental medicine studies remain essential in human physiology and drug development.
Review in Pflugers Archiv : European journal of physiology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Experimental medicine studies, small, mechanistically focused investigations, have historically driven key discoveries in human physiology and pharmacology. Despite their foundational role, these studies are increasingly marginalised in today's drug development environment due to economic pressures, regulatory conservatism, and an overemphasis on statistical endpoints from large-scale trials. This article traces the historical roots and enduring value of experimental medicine, distinguishes it from current early phase drug development studies, and explores the structural forces behind its decline. N-of-1 trials are discussed as a systematic extension of these principles, offering precision insights at the individual level. We apply this discussion to chronic kidney disease (CKD), a field where slow progression and heterogeneous pathophysiology make early mechanistic studies especially valuable. We argue that bypassing such studies in favour of speed represents a strategic gamble that may misdirect costly late-phase trials. Integrating mechanistic insights with statistical power is not superfluous, but essential, particularly in complex diseases like CKD where understanding why and how interventions work may matter as much as whether they do. We acknowledge that achieving this vision necessitates overcoming significant structural, economic, and cultural barriers within the current drug development environment; however, the costs of inaction, manifest as trial failures, patient harm, and missed therapeutic opportunities, are potentially much greater.
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.