Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23223171›Full record

ArticleNature methods2012

Measuring behavior of animal models: faults and remedies.

Ehud Fonio, Ilan Golani, Yoav Benjamini

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Nature methods, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

35 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. High mirror symmetry in mouse exploratory behavior.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A Psychometrically Robust Screening Tool To Rapidly Identify Socially Impaired Monkeys In The General Population.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2020
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Discovery reliability.Journal of cerebral blood flow and metabolism : official journal of the International Society of Cerebral Blood Flow and Metabolism · 2019
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

3 authors.

Ehud FonioDepartment of Neurobiology, Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel. ehud.fonio@weizmann.ac.il
Ilan Golani
Yoav Benjamini

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Widely used behavioral assays need re-evaluation and validation against their intended use. We focus here on measures of chronic anxiety in mouse models and posit that widely used assays such as the open-field test are performed at the wrong time, for inadequate durations and using inappropriate mouse strains. We propose that behavioral assays be screened for usefulness on the basis of their replicability across laboratories.

Indexed as

AnxietyBehavior, AnimalModels, AnimalAnimalsAnimals, WildDatabases, FactualExploratory BehaviorHabituation, PsychophysiologicMiceMice, Inbred BALB CPhenotypePsychological TestsReproducibility of ResultsTime FactorsValidation Studies as Topic

Identifiers

PMID23223171

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.