Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24265618›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2013

Individual differences and the characterization of animal models of psychopathology: a strong challenge and a good opportunity.

Antonio Armario, Roser Nadal

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing 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

18 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Reduced nucleus accumbens enkephalins underlie vulnerability to social defeat stress.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2019
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Dysfunctional inhibitory mechanisms in locus coeruleus neurons of the wistar kyoto rat.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2015
    Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

2 authors.

Antonio ArmarioInstitut de Neurociències, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain ; Unitat de Fisiologia Animal, Facultat de Biociències, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Bellaterra, Barcelona, Spain.
Roser Nadal

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Despite the development of valuable new techniques (i.e., genetics, neuroimage) for the study of the neurobiological substrate of psychiatric diseases, there are strong limitations in the information that can be gathered from human studies. It is thus critical to develop appropriate animal models of psychiatric diseases to characterize their putative biological bases and the development of new therapeutic strategies. The present review tries to offer a general perspective and several examples of how individual differences in animals can contribute to explain differential susceptibility to develop behavioral alterations, but also emphasizes methodological problems that can lead to inappropriate or over-simplistic interpretations. A critical analysis of the approaches currently used could contribute to obtain more reliable data and allow taking full advantage of new and sophisticated technologies. The discussion is mainly focused on anxiety-like and to a lower extent on depression-like behavior in rodents.

Indexed as

anxietydepressionforced swim testgenetic selectioninbred strainsindividual differencessexstress

Identifiers

PMID24265618
PMCPMC3821037

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.