ReviewVeterinary pathology2012
Designing phenotyping studies for genetically engineered mice.
Review in Veterinary pathology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research-Relevant Conditions and Pathology of Laboratory Mice, Rats, Gerbils, Guinea Pigs, Hamsters, Naked Mole Rats, and Rabbits.ILAR journal · 2021Review
- TopoDB: a novel multifunctional management system for laboratory animal colonies.Database : the journal of biological databases and curation · 2020Article
- The effects of microchipping C57BL/6N mice on standard phenotyping tests.F1000Research · 2020Article
- Pathology Principles and Practices for Analysis of Animal Models.ILAR journal · 2018Article
- Fundamental Concepts for Semiquantitative Tissue Scoring in Translational Research.ILAR journal · 2018Article
- Principles and approaches for reproducible scoring of tissue stains in research.Laboratory investigation; a journal of technical methods and pathology · 2018Review
- Approaches to Evaluate Lung Inflammation in Translational Research.Veterinary pathology · 2018Review
- Practical murine hematopathology: a comparative review and implications for research.Comparative medicine · 2015Review
- High-throughput screening of mouse gene knockouts identifies established and novel skeletal phenotypes.Bone research · 2014Article
- Principles for valid histopathologic scoring in research.Veterinary pathology · 2013Review
- Proliferative and non-proliferative lesions of the rat and mouse integument.Journal of toxicologic pathology · 2013Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A phenotyping study records physiologic or morphologic changes in an experimental animal resulting from an intervention. In mice, this intervention is most frequently genetic, but it may be any type of experimental manipulation. Accurate representation of the human condition under study is essential if the model is to yield useful conclusions. In this review, general approaches to the design of phenotyping studies are considered. These approaches take into account major sources of reduced model validity, such as unexpected phenotypic variation in mice, evolutionary divergence between mice and humans, unanticipated sources of variation, and common design errors. As poor design is the most common reason why studies fail to yield enduring results, emphasis is placed on reduction of bias, sampling, controlled study design, and appropriate statistical analysis.
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.