Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20351718›Full record

ReviewMolecular psychiatry2011

Big ideas for small brains: what can psychiatry learn from worms, flies, bees and fish?

T Burne, E Scott, B van Swinderen, M Hilliard, J Reinhard, C Claudianos, D Eyles, J McGrath

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Molecular psychiatry, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Framework for integrating animal welfare into life cycle sustainability assessment.The international journal of life cycle assessment · 2018
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

T BurneQueensland Brain Institute, University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia.
E Scott
B van Swinderen
M Hilliard
J Reinhard
C Claudianos
D Eyles
J McGrath

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While the research community has accepted the value of rodent models as informative research platforms, there is less awareness of the utility of other small vertebrate and invertebrate animal models. Neuroscience is increasingly turning to smaller, non-rodent models to understand mechanisms related to neuropsychiatric disorders. Although they can never replace clinical research, there is much to be learnt from 'small brains'. In particular, these species can offer flexible genetic 'tool kits' that can be used to explore the expression and function of candidate genes in different brain regions. Very small animals also offer efficiencies with respect to high-throughput screening programs. This review provides a concise overview of the utility of models based on worm, fruit fly, honeybee and zebrafish. Although these species may have small brains, they offer the neuropsychiatric research community opportunities to explore some of the most important research questions in our field.

Indexed as

Models, AnimalAnimalsHigh-Throughput Screening AssaysMental DisordersNerve Tissue ProteinsNeuropsychiatryNerve Tissue Proteins

Identifiers

PMID20351718

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.