Genetically modified mice for research on human diseases: A triumph for Biotechnology or a work in progress?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Genetically modified mice are engineered as models for human diseases. These mouse models include inbred strains, mutants, gene knockouts, gene knockins, and ‘humanized’ mice. Each mouse model is engineered to mimic a specific disease based on a theory of the genetic basis of that disease. For example, to test the amyloid theory of Alzheimer’s disease, mice with amyloid precursor protein genes are engineered, and to test the tau theory, mice with tau genes are engineered. This paper discusses the importance of mouse models in basic research, drug discovery, and translational research, and examines the question of how to define the “best” mouse model of a disease. The critiques of animal models and the caveats in translating the results from animal models to the treatment of human disease are discussed. Since many diseases are heritable, multigenic, age-related and experience-dependent, resulting from multiple gene-gene and gene-environment interactions, it will be essential to develop mouse models that reflect these genetic, epigenetic and environmental factors from a developmental perspective. Such models would provide further insight into disease emergence, progression and the ability to model two-hit and multi-hit theories of disease. The summary examines the biotechnology for creating genetically modified mice which reflect these factors and how they might be used to discover new treatments for complex human diseases such as cancers, neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative diseases.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".