ReviewBehavioral and brain functions : BBF2017
Logical fallacies in animal model research.
Review in Behavioral and brain functions : BBF, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed, 47 citations in OpenAlex.
- Development and Worsening of Hypertension with Age in Male Wistar Rats as a Physiological Model of Age-Related Hypertension: Correction of Hypertension with Taxifolin.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Neurobiological insights into twice-exceptionality: Circuits, cells, and molecules.Neurobiology of learning and memory · 2022Article
- A dopamine-methacrylated hyaluronic acid hydrogel as an effective carrier for stem cells in skin regeneration therapy.Cell death & disease · 2022Article
- The inflammatory profile of cerebrospinal fluid, plasma, and saliva from patients with severe neuropathic pain and healthy controls-a pilot study.BMC neuroscience · 2021Article
- Animal Models of Temporomandibular Disorder.Journal of pain research · 2021Review
- Research, Clinical, and Sociological Aspects of Autism.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2021Review
- Systematic review of guidelines for internal validity in the design, conduct and analysis of preclinical biomedical experiments involving laboratory animals.BMJ open science · 2020Article
- Animal Models of Psychosis in Alzheimer Disease.The American journal of geriatric psychiatry : official journal of the American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry · 2020Review
- The future of rodent models in depression research.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2019Review
- Animal Models of Hypertension: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.Hypertension (Dallas, Tex. : 1979) · 2019Review
- Humans use multi-objective control to regulate lateral foot placement when walking.PLoS computational biology · 2019Article
- Behavioral models in psychopathology: epistemic and semantic considerations.Behavioral and brain functions : BBF · 2019Review
- Baicalin regulates the dopamine system to control the core symptoms of ADHD.Molecular brain · 2019Article
- Effect of Schedule-Induced Behavior on Responses of Spontaneously Hypertensive and Wistar-Kyoto Rats in a Delay-Discounting Task: A Preliminary Report.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2019Article
- Is Autism Inborn And Lifelong For Everyone?Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2019Article
- Is it possible to overcome issues of external validity in preclinical animal research? Why most animal models are bound to fail.Journal of translational medicine · 2018Review
- Fish mutant, where is thy phenotype?PLoS genetics · 2018Article
- Utility of the Hebb-Williams Maze Paradigm for Translational Research in Fragile X Syndrome: A Direct Comparison of Mice and Humans.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2018Article
- Genetic rodent models of brain disorders: Perspectives on experimental approaches and therapeutic strategies.American journal of medical genetics. Part C, Seminars in medical genetics · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnimal models of human behavioural deficits involve conducting experiments on animals with the hope of gaining new knowledge that can be applied to humans. This paper aims to address risks, biases, and fallacies associated with drawing conclusions when conducting experiments on animals, with focus on animal models of mental illness.
conclusionsResearchers using animal models are susceptible to a fallacy known as false analogy, where inferences based on assumptions of similarities between animals and humans can potentially lead to an incorrect conclusion. There is also a risk of false positive results when evaluating the validity of a putative animal model, particularly if the experiment is not conducted double-blind. It is further argued that animal model experiments are reconstructions of human experiments, and not replications per se, because the animals cannot follow instructions. This leads to an experimental setup that is altered to accommodate the animals, and typically involves a smaller sample size than a human experiment. Researchers on animal models of human behaviour should increase focus on mechanistic validity in order to ensure that the underlying causal mechanisms driving the behaviour are the same, as relying on face validity makes the model susceptible to logical fallacies and a higher risk of Type 1 errors. We discuss measures to reduce bias and risk of making logical fallacies in animal research, and provide a guideline that researchers can follow to increase the rigour of their experiments.
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.