actually I dont think ANY scientist medical or otherwise ever assumes the absolute cross relativity between animal studies and human outcome speculation.
here are a few articles that are of similar topic and note they go back very far meaning this has been standard accepted fact for decades--that you cant automatically and without severe limitations extrapolate results from animal tests to human otucomes.
http://www.shockjournal.com/pt/re/shock ... 28!8091!-1
ANIMAL MODELS OF SEPSIS AND SHOCK: A REVIEW AND LESSONS LEARNED.
Shock. 9(1):1-11, January 1998.
Deitch, Edwin A.
This review focuses on the concept that the preclinical trials of many of these agents were conducted using models of sepsis and shock that do not adequately reflect the clinical realities of these conditions
J Infect Dis. 1988
Correlation of antimicrobial pharmacokinetic parameters with therapeutic efficacy in an animal model
Animal models for the study of anti-anxiety agents: a review.
Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 1985 Summer;9(2):203-22
Although there are important exceptions, in general, most early animal models have not provided a reliable basis for identifying compounds with potential anxiolytic action, or for delineating the mechanisms of anxiolytic drug action
PRO animal studies with antimicrobials:
Animal model pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: a critical review
D Andes, WA Craig - International journal of antimicrobial agents, 2002
Animals have been extensively used in the evaluation of antimicrobials. The value of animals in the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characterization of antimicrobials is critically reviewed. Animal studies have demonstrated that the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) target determining efficacy can vary for different classes of antimicrobials. However, the magnitude of the target required for bacteriological efficacy is relatively similar for various sites of infection, various pathogens and various drugs within the same class, provided free drug levels are used.
and here are a few others
Clinical Infectious Diseases 1998;26:1–10
State-of-the-Art Clinical Article: Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Parameters: Rationale for Antibacterial Dosing of Mice and Men
William A. Craig
J Infect Dis. 1990 Jul;162(1):96-102
Widmer AF, Frei R, Rajacic Z, Zimmerli W.
Correlation between in vivo and in vitro efficacy of antimicrobial agents against foreign body infections
part of the abstract I found very interesting
In vivo studies were performed with the guinea pig tissue-cage animal model; in vitro studies with minimum inhibiting and bactericidal concentrations, time-kill studies of growing and stationary-phase microorganisms, the killing of glass-adherent S. epidermidis. Drug efficacy on stationary and adherent microorganisms, but not minimum inhibiting concentrations, predicted the outcome of device-related infections. Rifampin cured 12 of 12 infections and was also the most efficient drug in any experimental in vitro test. Similarly, the failure of ciprofloxacin to eradicate foreign body infections correlated with its low efficacy on stationary-phase and adherent S. epidermidis.
this study shows the confusion over in vivo vs in vitro--in VIVO here means using a guinea pig tissue model and NOT humans or even human tissue cultures!! so just because you read "in vivo" you still must read the methodology section to see what they actually did!!
AND the fact that the MICs had NO predictive value!!
( and curiously ,the Rifampin beating Cipro in antimicrobial activity too)
some models( animal or culture plate) can have an extremely close correllation to humans meaning the study will be useful, while other models are less reliable.
Often before an animal study is undertaken it has to go through many layers of approval not the least of which is proof of absolute need of an animal model ( for at least 2-3 decades there has been a limitation); also required is proof of how well it has already been shown that the animal model planned to be used will in fact mimic the conditions needed for human outcome estimations, and finally furhter solid evidence that at the end of the study the information will have usefulness of specific parameters ( in other words you cant simpl,y say "I wanna use mice and I think it may end up helping some people")
so using animal models MAY or may NOT mean a thing when looking for correllation to human cases and even the use of IN VIVO vs In VITRO may not mean much either-- in vivo may not mean 'in the human who has the targeted specific illness' which is the ONLY 'absolute' test of a specific drug against a specific pathogen
so much for the frustration of a few members looking for black and white definitions to always mean the same thing!!