ReviewPLoS neglected tropical diseases2026
Animal models in venom and antivenom research: The need to align academic discovery with manufacturing and regulatory expectations.
Review in PLoS neglected tropical diseases, 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
The study of snake venom toxicity and evaluation of the neutralisation ability of antivenoms and novel therapeutic agents for envenoming has largely relied on animal tests, especially the analysis of the lethal activity of venoms and its neutralisation. In addition, other animal-based assays are used to assess pathology-specific effects of venoms. Despite their demonstrated value, these assays have several limitations. They involve acute stress and pain in animals, and their validity, vis-à-vis the characteristics of human snakebite envenoming, is limited owing to the nature of the assays. Therefore, urgent innovations are required in this field. Ensuring the implementation of the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) is essential when animal studies are required. These include: (a) refinement of the tests (e.g., use of analgesia, reduction of assay duration, and refining of humane endpoints); (b) reduction in the number of animals used by more thorough in vitro assessment of antivenoms prior to in vivo assays, and improved statistical analyses and group sizing; and, most importantly, and (c) replacement of in vivo rodent tests with validated in vitro approaches, such as immunoassays, enzymatic and cell-based assays, the use of invertebrate models, and the implementation of New Approach Methodologies (NAMs), i.e., novel in vitro or in silico techniques that model complex pathophysiological processes of envenoming. A roadmap involving researchers, manufacturers, quality control groups, regulators, and funding agencies is proposed, with the aim of driving significant changes in this field.
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.