I disagree. It is relevant, and not lowering level of discourse. Animal models are both very useful and very limited. There is no way to 'adjust' them into such

I disagree. It is relevant, and not lowering level of discourse. Animal models are both very useful and very limited. There is no way to 'adjust' them into such a perfect proxy that the model is irrelevant. You can do better, but at the end of the day the most important adjustment to make is to keep in mind that it is in fact... in mice. While "... in mice!" can get a little jokey at times, the alternative is often a discussion that more or less assumes that the smallest of effects in any model are directly actionable information for the readers. It's not. Even with human studies, a single study is rarely enough to come to strong conclusions. In an ideal world, sure, it's just a repetition of facts everybody knows because everybody read and understood the article before engaging in the discussion at all (even just reading). But that's unrealistic on multiple fronts. Until that's a reasonable assumption, I'm more than happy to see some reminders of important facts in the comments. Even if it spawns the occasional joke.