ArticleNeurotoxicity research2008
Stress, geomagnetic disturbance, infradian and circadian sampling for circulating corticosterone and models of human depression?
Article in Neurotoxicity research, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impairment in behavioral sedation in rats during periods of elevated global geomagnetic activity.International journal of biometeorology · 2019Article
- Cross-sectional survey on self-reported health of ambulance personnel.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
While certain circadian hormonal changes are prominent, their predictable assessment requires a standardization of conditions of sampling. The 24-hour rhythm in circulating corticosterone of rodents, known since the 1950s, was studied as a presumed proxy for stress on 108 rats divided into 9 groups of 6 male and 9 groups of 6 female animals sampled every 4 hours for 24 hours. In a first stress study, the "no-rhythm" (zero-amplitude) assumption failed to be rejected at the 5% probability level in the two control groups and in 16 out of the 18 groups considered. A circadian rhythm could be detected with statistical significance, however, in three separate follow-up studies in the same laboratory, each on 168 rats kept on two antiphasic lighting regimens, with 4-hourly sampling for 7 or 14 days. In the first stress study, pooling of certain groups helped the detection and assessment of the circadian corticosterone rhythm. Without extrapolating to hormones other than corticosterone, which may shift more slowly or adjust differently and in response to different synchronizers, the three follow-up studies yielded uncertainty measures (95% confidence intervals) for the point estimate of its circadian period, of possible use in any future study as a reference standard. The happenstance of a magnetic disturbance at the start of two follow-up studies was associated with the detection of a circasemiseptan component, raising the question whether a geomagnetic disturbance could be considered as a "load". Far beyond the limitations of sample size, the methodological requirements for standardization in the experimental laboratory concerning designs of studies are considered in the context of models of depression. Lessons from nature's unforeseen geomagnetic contribution and from human studies are noted, all to support the advocacy, in the study of loads, of sampling schedules covering more than 24 hours.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.