↓ Skip to main content

Are animal models predictive for humans?

Overview of attention for article published in Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2009
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#1 of 205)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
14 news outlets
blogs
4 blogs
twitter
93 tweeters
patent
5 patents
facebook
22 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
401 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
849 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Are animal models predictive for humans?
Published in
Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine, January 2009
DOI 10.1186/1747-5341-4-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Niall Shanks, Ray Greek, Jean Greek

Abstract

It is one of the central aims of the philosophy of science to elucidate the meanings of scientific terms and also to think critically about their application. The focus of this essay is the scientific term predict and whether there is credible evidence that animal models, especially in toxicology and pathophysiology, can be used to predict human outcomes. Whether animals can be used to predict human response to drugs and other chemicals is apparently a contentious issue. However, when one empirically analyzes animal models using scientific tools they fall far short of being able to predict human responses. This is not surprising considering what we have learned from fields such evolutionary and developmental biology, gene regulation and expression, epigenetics, complexity theory, and comparative genomics.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 93 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 849 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 5 <1%
United States 4 <1%
Italy 2 <1%
South Africa 2 <1%
Spain 2 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Sri Lanka 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 828 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 182 21%
Student > Ph. D. Student 170 20%
Student > Master 138 16%
Researcher 114 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 38 4%
Other 103 12%
Unknown 104 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 145 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 117 14%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 101 12%
Engineering 69 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 43 5%
Other 223 26%
Unknown 151 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 225. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 13 November 2021.
All research outputs
#105,123
of 19,505,646 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#1
of 205 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#416
of 129,225 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 19,505,646 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 205 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 129,225 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them