ArticlePsychopharmacology2013
A critical examination of best dose analysis for determining cognitive-enhancing potential of drugs: studies with rhesus monkeys and computer simulations.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ginkgo Biloba as a niche theme cognitive enhancer agent, 1420 dokumen of Scopus database. A bibliometric study from 1988 to 2024.F1000Research · 2025Article
- Methylphenidate as a causal test of translational and basic neural coding hypotheses.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2022Article
- Effects of N-Methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) antagonists ketamine, methoxetamine, and phencyclidine on the odor span test of working memory in rats.Experimental and clinical psychopharmacology · 2018Article
- Behavioral pharmacology of the odor span task: Effects of flunitrazepam, ketamine, methamphetamine and methylphenidate.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2016Article
- Effects of environmental and pharmacological manipulations on a novel delayed nonmatching-to-sample 'working memory' procedure in unrestrained rhesus monkeys.Journal of neuroscience methods · 2015Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleBest dose analysis involves identifying the dose associated with the greatest improvement in performance for each subject and comparing performances associated with these individually determined best doses to control performances.
objectivesThe current experiments were conducted to examine whether significant best dose effects might result from the selective analysis of data rather than an actual drug effect.
methodsExperiment 1 examined the effects of nicotine and methylphenidate on delayed matching-to-sample (DMTS) and self-ordered spatial search (SOSS) performances in rhesus monkeys (DMTS: n = 7; SOSS: n = 6) to determine the validity and reliability of best dose effects. Experiment 2 used Monte Carlo computer simulations to estimate the likelihood of obtaining a significant outcome when the best dose method was applied to randomly generated data sets for which no difference existed.
resultsSignificant effects were obtained when the best dose analysis was applied to performances from nondrug sessions, and best dose performances were not significantly different from the best nondrug performances. The doses identified as best doses from two nicotine dose-response curve determinations were unrelated, and the improvement associated with the best dose observed during the first dose-response curve determination was not reliable when the dose was administered repeatedly. Finally, there was a high likelihood of obtaining a statistically significant difference when no real difference existed.
conclusionsBest dose analysis for the identification of potential therapeutic agents should be replaced by single-subject designs.
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.