3 ms·
Do you have a reference on this? It'd be quite interesting to read further on why studies using mice are often poor predictors of human reactions to exposure.
by schappim 5y ago
Do you have a reference on this? It'd be quite interesting to read further on why studies using mice are often poor predictors of human reactions to exposure.
- bwb 5y agoI read it years ago in a medical journal talking about the insanity of websites that post cutting edge research when it is only the early result. Sorry not sure where it is located, but you could Google it. You have locations like this: https://theconversation.com/of-mice-and-men-why-animal-trial-results-dont-always-translate-to-humans-73354 https://theconversation.com/of-mice-and-men-why-animal-trial... It showed that of the most-cited animal studies in prestigious scientific journals, such as Nature and Cell, only 37% were replicated in subsequent human randomised trials and 18% were contradicted in human trials. It is safe to assume that less-cited animal studies in lesser journals would have an even lower strike rate. Not sure why that is higher, but it is phrased weird.