↓ 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 216)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (99th percentile)

Mentioned by

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

Citations

dimensions_citation
474 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
945 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 90 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 945 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%
Brazil 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 924 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 191 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 183 19%
Student > Master 150 16%
Researcher 128 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 41 4%
Other 107 11%
Unknown 145 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 150 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 123 13%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 113 12%
Engineering 79 8%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 46 5%
Other 244 26%
Unknown 190 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 235. 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 19 November 2022.
All research outputs
#129,065
of 22,557,175 outputs
Outputs from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#1
of 216 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#392
of 180,137 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Philosophy, Ethics, and Humanities in Medicine
#1
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,557,175 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 216 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.4. 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 180,137 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 10 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