Cited by 60Animal testing and alternativesStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsMedicine, History, and Philosophy

Strategies to optimize the validity of disease models in the drug discovery process

Sams-Dodd, Frank·2006·Drug Discovery Today

Abstract

Models of human diseases are necessary for experimental research into the biological basis of disease and for the development of treatments. They have an enormous impact upon the success of biomedical research. However, in spite of this, a consistent system for evaluating, expressing and comparing the clinical validity of disease models is not available. The purpose of this paper is, therefore, to provide a theoretical discussion of the concepts behind disease models and to develop a terminology and a framework to analyze and express the clinical validity of disease models.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.drudis.2006.02.005

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • These profoundly important and often undetected differences are likely one of the main reasons human clinical trials fail.

    “These profoundly important—and often undetected—differences are likely one of the main reasons human clinical trials fail.63”

    From The Flaws and Human Harms of Animal Experimentation (2015) · cites this paper as [63]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sams-Dodd, F.
Venue
Drug Discovery Today
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2006-04
Volume
11
Issue
7-8
Pages
355-363
ISSN
1359-6446 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1984809704
Cited by
60
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 3
FWCI
0.43
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Drug Discovery Today (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Medicine, History, and Philosophy
Keywords
disease models, clinical validity, drug discovery, model evaluation, terminology, translational research
MeSH terms
Animals, Disease Models, Animal, Drug Evaluation, Preclinical, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review