opinion). Of course, “[w]hen an expert does not rely on the primary d in vitro studies, courts have required experts to “explain how such studies can be reliably extrapolated to prove comparable effects in humans.” In re Prempro Prods. Liab. Litig., 738 F.Supp.2d 887, 894 (E.D.Ark.2010) (citing Joiner, supra, 522 U.S. at 144, 118 S.Ct. 512 (1997); Allison v. McGhan Medical Corp., 184 F.3d 1300, 1313-14 (11th Cir.1999); In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717, 743 (3d Cir.1994)). Courts also have expressed skepticism of causation opinions based on solely on adverse event reports, case series, case reports and case studies, but have admitted such opinions when accompanied by other reliable scientific evidence. See, e.g., Glaser v. Thompson Med. Co., 32 F.3d 969, 972 (6th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); In re Phenylpropanolamine Prods. Liab.
holding that trial court abused its discretion by excluding expert opinion on causation where the expert relied upon scientific and clinical studies of the connection between collagen and autoimmune disorders as well as an examination of the plaintiff and her medical history recognizing that an expert may rely on an article because it is the expert who determines based on study and experience whether the article is reliable holding that experts may rely in part on internet research holding that a reliable differential diagnosis alone may provide a valid foundation for a causation opinion even when no epidemiological studies peerreviewed published studies animal studies or laboratory data are offered in support of the opinion holding that published studies published articles case reports and the experts own clinical and research experience constituted sufficient reliable scientific data upon which an expert may base conclusion