Here's a very interesting quote on the value of "low impact" studies:
"From a medical perspective, if you prove that a medicine works in a mouse, you haven’t proven that it works in a human, and thus it’s considered low-quality evidence. But if you demonstrate that a medicine upregulates the NRF2 pathway in a mouse and by extension activates hundreds of genes related to cellular defense, the likelihood that it will behave similarly in humans is very high because biochemically, humans, mice, and even plants share an astonishing amount of chemistry, processes, and even systems. Suddenly, those “low-end” studies become much more important because they help you understand complex systems and how they behave and interact. At some point, these low-end studies begin to critique your earlier high-end randomized controlled clinical trials."
Do you guys agree?
"From a medical perspective, if you prove that a medicine works in a mouse, you haven’t proven that it works in a human, and thus it’s considered low-quality evidence. But if you demonstrate that a medicine upregulates the NRF2 pathway in a mouse and by extension activates hundreds of genes related to cellular defense, the likelihood that it will behave similarly in humans is very high because biochemically, humans, mice, and even plants share an astonishing amount of chemistry, processes, and even systems. Suddenly, those “low-end” studies become much more important because they help you understand complex systems and how they behave and interact. At some point, these low-end studies begin to critique your earlier high-end randomized controlled clinical trials."
Do you guys agree?
