Evidence Tier
animal_in_vivo
Last updated
Rung 4 on this site's seven-rung evidence ladder. A study in live non-human animals with a control or sham group, reporting the outcome the claim is about, with species, strain, group sizes and sex stated, and the dose given in mg/kg alongside the route. Groups of fewer than three animals, or doses reported as a total mass with no body weight, do not qualify. The full criteria are at /evidence/rubric.
Flagged for specialist review
This entry describes something contested, or asserts a detail we have not been able to confirm against a settled source. It is published rather than withheld, with the flag visible, because an entry you can weigh beats a gap you cannot see.
Why it matters here
A large share of the peptide literature stops at this rung, and it is the rung whose mg/kg figures most often leak into human dose tables where they do not belong.
What it is not
An animal dose is not a human dose. Allometric scaling produces a plausible starting point for designing a trial, not an amount for a person, and rodent healing and regeneration models in particular have a long record of not translating.
Also called
- animal study
- rodent study
- in vivo
- mouse study
- rat study
- animal in vivo
In vivo alone only means in a living organism and is sometimes used of human work; on this site it is reserved for the non-human animal rung.
Compounds carrying this term
None on file yet. This term is in the controlled vocabulary but no compound record currently uses it — which is a statement about our coverage, not about the term.