Suppr超能文献

营养与饮食研究中的动物实验现状:100种顶尖期刊的政策及新方法学

Status of animal experimentation in nutrition and dietetic research: Policies of 100 leading journals and new approach methodologies.

作者信息

Storz Maximilian Andreas, Dean Elizabeth

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine II, Centre for Complementary Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, University of Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Germany.

Department of Physical Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada.

出版信息

Account Res. 2024 Sep 18:1-19. doi: 10.1080/08989621.2024.2398104.

Abstract

Given animal research is challenged with inadequacies, e.g., animal-to-human knowledge translation, ethical considerations, and cost:benefit, new approach methodologies (NAMs) have been proposed as a replacement. With reference to the field of nutrition and dietetics, our aim was to examine the policies of its leading journals regarding human-based vs. traditional animal-based research; and to explore emerging NAMs that provide alternatives to animal experimentation. We reviewed 100 leading journals from an established database (SCImago Journal Rankings) in the nutrition and dietetics category for the year 2022. Eighty-three journals met the inclusion criteria. NAMs were extracted from a range of established sources. 9.6% ( = 8) of journals state they do not publish animal-based studies; 4.8% ( = 4) consider animal studies with qualifications, whereas the remaining 85.5% ( = 71) publish animal studies without qualification. Across sources, NAMs commonalities were identified including , , and methods; and individual and population-based studies. Of leading nutrition/dietetic journals, relatively few have shifted to strictly non-animal methods. Greater attention to the increasing range of NAMs may not only reduce the need for animal research in the field, but may provide superior human-relevant outcomes. Studies are needed to establish their potential superiority.

摘要

鉴于动物研究面临诸多不足,例如动物到人类的知识转化、伦理考量以及成本效益问题,新方法学(NAMs)已被提议作为替代方案。参照营养与饮食学领域,我们的目标是研究其领先期刊关于基于人类的研究与传统基于动物的研究的政策;并探索能替代动物实验的新兴NAMs。我们从一个既定数据库(Scimago期刊排名)中查阅了2022年营养与饮食学类别下的100种领先期刊。83种期刊符合纳入标准。NAMs从一系列既定来源中提取。9.6%(=8种)的期刊表示它们不发表基于动物的研究;4.8%(=4种)对动物研究有条件接受,而其余85.5%(=71种)无条件发表动物研究。在各种来源中,确定了NAMs的共性,包括 、 和 方法;以及基于个体和人群的研究。在领先的营养/饮食学期刊中,相对较少的期刊已转向严格的非动物方法。更多关注不断增加的NAMs范围不仅可能减少该领域对动物研究的需求,而且可能提供与人类更相关的卓越成果。需要开展研究来确定它们潜在的优越性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验