Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 435

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 111 of the 111 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report: Use of Animal Models for the Preclinical Assessment of Potential Therapies for Pulmonary Fibrosis

Open access
Jenkins, R. Gisli, Moore, Bethany B., Chambers, Rachel C., Eickelberg, Oliver, Königshoff, Melanie, Kolb, Martin, Laurent, Geoffrey J., Nanthakumar, Carmel B., Olman, Mitchell A., Pardo, Annie, Selman, Moises, Sheppard, Dean, Sime, Patricia J., Tager, Andrew M., Tatler, Amanda L., Thannickal, Victor J., White, Eric S.·2017·American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology

Abstract

Numerous compounds have shown efficacy in limiting development of pulmonary fibrosis using animal models, yet few of these compounds have replicated these beneficial effects in clinical trials. Given the challenges associated with performing clinical trials in patients with idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), it is imperative that preclinical data packages be robust in their analyses and interpretations to have the best chance of selecting promising drug candidates to advance to clinical trials. The American Thoracic Society has convened a group of experts in lung fibrosis to discuss and formalize recommendations for preclinical assessment of antifibrotic compounds. The panel considered three major themes (choice of animal, practical considerations of fibrosis modeling, and fibrotic endpoints for evaluation). Recognizing the need for practical considerations, we have taken a pragmatic approach. The consensus view is that use of the murine intratracheal bleomycin model in animals of both genders, using hydroxyproline measurements for collagen accumulation along with histologic assessments, is the best-characterized animal model available for preclinical testing. Testing of antifibrotic compounds in this model is recommended to occur after the acute inflammatory phase has subsided (generally after Day 7). Robust analyses may also include confirmatory studies in human IPF specimens and validation of results in a second system using in vivo or in vitro approaches. The panel also strongly encourages the publication of negative results to inform the lung fibrosis community. These recommendations are for preclinical therapeutic evaluation only and are not intended to dissuade development of emerging technologies to better understand IPF pathogenesis.

Overview

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 · 10.1165/rcmb.2017-0096st

Cites

111 of 111 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 111 references

Cited by

See all 435

Metadata

Authors
Jenkins, R. G., Moore, B. B., Chambers, R. C., Eickelberg, O., Königshoff, M., Kolb, M., Laurent, G. J., Nanthakumar, C. B., Olman, M. A., Pardo, A., Selman, M., Sheppard, D., Sime, P. J., Tager, A. M., Tatler, A. L., Thannickal, V. J., & White, E. S.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology
Published
2017-05-01
Volume
56
Issue
5
Pages
667-679
ISSN
  • 1044-1549 (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4989
OpenAlex
W2610199736
Cited by
435
References
111
FWCI
21.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report: Use of Animal Models for the Preclinical Assessment of Potential Therapies for Pulmonary Fibrosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1165/rcmb.2017-0096st
The paper
Jenkins, R. G., Moore, B. B., Chambers, R. C., Eickelberg, O., Königshoff, M., Kolb, M., Laurent, G. J., Nanthakumar, C. B., Olman, M. A., Pardo, A., Selman, M., Sheppard, D., Sime, P. J., Tager, A. M., Tatler, A. L., Thannickal, V. J., & White, E. S. (2017). An Official American Thoracic Society Workshop Report: Use of Animal Models for the Preclinical Assessment of Potential Therapies for Pulmonary Fibrosis. American Journal of Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology. https://doi.org/10.1165/rcmb.2017-0096st

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.