Cited by 60Animal testing and alternativesSpaceflight effects on biologyPhilosophy and History of Science

Murine "model" monotheism: an iconoclast at the altar of mouse

Open access
Libby, Peter·2015·Circulation Research

Abstract

Many use mice for contemporary cardiovascular research, as we should, given the power of the genetic and other tools developed to permit rigorous mechanistic experimentation in this species. We must remain mindful, nonetheless, of the reasons why the results of mouse experiments may not extrapolate readily to human disease. Large gaps separate our mouse experiments and clinical conditions. The differences arise from the genetic homogeneity of inbred mouse strains used in experimentation, the restricted exposure of mice to many microbes and a more monotonous microbiome in mice than in free-living rodents and humans, lack of comorbidities, focus on youthful mice and exaggerated experimental conditions contrived to speed up studies, and the lack of congruence between many experimental “models” and human cardiovascular conditions. We must and should continue to mine studies on mice for the incredibly valuable mechanistic insight they provide. Yet, we as a community could consider more carefully some of the barriers to glib extrapolation of the results of experiments in mice to human disease.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/circresaha.115.307523

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Insufficient reproducibility has been openly communicated in oncology and cardiovascular biology.

    “The controversial matter of insufficient reproducibility was, in fact, communicated openly in oncology and cardiovascular biology (Begley and Ellis, 2012; Errington et al., 2014; Libby, 2015).”

    From In Vitro research Reproducibility: Keeping up High Standards (2019) · cites this paper as Libby, 2015

    The available figure passage discusses the interpretation of mouse research in cardiovascular science, not insufficient reproducibility. Searches for “reproducibility” and “irreproducible results” found no passage addressing the claimed open communication of that problem in oncology or cardiovascular biology. (LLM, conf=0.69)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Libby, P.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Libby, Peter
Venue
Circulation Research
Published
2015-11-06
Volume
117
Issue
11
Pages
921-925
ISSN
  • 0009-7330 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4571
OpenAlex
W2168307852
Cited by
60
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 9
FWCI
12.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Circulation Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard (DASH) (Harvard University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Circulation Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Spaceflight effects on biology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Philosophy and History of Science
Keywords
mouse model, cardiovascular disease, translational research, inbred mouse strains, comorbidities, mechanistic insights
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Animals, Cardiology, Cardiovascular Diseases, Disease Models, Animal, Humans, Phenotype, Risk Factors, Species Specificity, Comorbidity, Mice, Congenic, Mice, Translational Research, Biomedical

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