Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29966544›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS2018

Behavioral Assessment of Vision in Pigs.

Francesca Barone, Eleonora Nannoni, Alberto Elmi, Carlotta Lambertini, Diana Gerardi Scorpio, Domenico Ventrella, Marika Vitali, José F Maya-Vetencourt, Giovanna Martelli, Fabio Benfenati and 1 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 30% of its field
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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. The Open Field Test as a Tool for Behaviour Analysis in Pigs: Recommendations for Set-Up Standardization - A Systematic Review.European surgical research. Europaische chirurgische Forschung. Recherches chirurgicales europeennes · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

11 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Francesca BaroneDepartment of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano Emilia, Italy.
Eleonora NannoniDepartment of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano Emilia, Italy.
Alberto ElmiDepartment of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano Emilia, Italy.
Carlotta LambertiniDepartment of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano Emilia, Italy.
Diana Gerardi ScorpioVaccine Research Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
Domenico VentrellaDepartment of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano Emilia, Italy;, Email: Domenico.ventrella2@unibo.it.
Marika VitaliDepartment of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano Emilia, Italy.
José F Maya-VetencourtCenter for Synaptic Neuroscience and Technology, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.
Giovanna MartelliDepartment of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano Emilia, Italy.
Fabio BenfenatiCenter for Synaptic Neuroscience and Technology, Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia, Genova, Italy.
Maria L BacciDepartment of Veterinary Medical Sciences, University of Bologna, Ozzano Emilia, Italy.
University of Bologna · ITItalian Institute of Technology · ITNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases · US

Funding

Animal Medicine Infrastructure Support - Animal CareZIGAI005099 · NIAID · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES · PI ROEDERER, MARIO · 2017 to 2025
$133.3M
Laboratory Animal Research Support & Model DevelopmentZIAAI005144 · NIAID · NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES · PI ROEDERER, MARIO · 2019 to 2025
$56.6M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Swine (Sus scrofa) are often the 'gold standard' laboratory animal for ophthalmology research due to the anatomic and physiologic similarities between the porcine and human eye and retina. Despite the importance of this model, few tools for behavioral vision assessment in pigs are available. The aim of this study was to identify and validate a feasible and reproducible behavioral test to assess vision in a pig model of photoreceptor degeneration. In addition, a robust behavioral test will reduce stress and enhance enrichment by allowing animals opportunities for environmental exploration and by reducing the number of invasive experimental procedures. Two distinct behavioral approaches were tested: the obstacle-course test and temperament test. In the obstacle-course test, pigs were challenged (after an initial training period) to navigate a 10-object obstacle course; time and the number of collisions with the objects were recorded. In the temperament test, the time needed for pigs to complete 3 different tasks (human-approach, novel-object, and open-door tests) was recorded. The obstacle-course test revealed significant differences in time and number of collisions between swine with vision impairment and control animals, and the training period proved to be pivotal to avoid bias due to individual animal characteristics. In contrast, the temperament test was not altered by vision impairment but was validated to measure stress and behavioral alterations in laboratory pigs undergoing experimental procedures, thus achieving marked refinement of the study.

Indexed as

Animal WelfareBehavior, AnimalAnimalsAnimals, LaboratoryHumansSwineVision Tests

Identifiers

PMID29966544
PMCPMC6059216
OpenAlexW2810839516

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.