Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31000959›Full record

ArticleAnnals of neurosciences2018

Comparative Morphometry of the Wisconsin Miniature Swine

Gurwattan Singh Miranpuri, Dominic T Schomberg, Patricia Stan, Abhishek Chopra, Seah Buttar, Aleksandar Wood, Alexandra Radzin, Jennifer J Meudt, Daniel K Resnick, Dhanansayan Shanmuganayagam

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of neurosciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Brachial Plexus Anatomy of Sprague Dawley Rat Compared to Human.Journal of brachial plexus and peripheral nerve injury · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Gurwattan Singh MiranpuriDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Dominic T SchombergDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Patricia StanDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Abhishek ChopraDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Seah ButtarDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Aleksandar WoodDepartment of Animal Sciences, Biomedical and Genomic Research Group, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Alexandra RadzinDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Jennifer J MeudtDepartment of Animal Sciences, Biomedical and Genomic Research Group, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Daniel K ResnickDepartment of Neurological Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Dhanansayan ShanmuganayagamDepartment of Animal Sciences, Biomedical and Genomic Research Group, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · USNeurological Surgery · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND/

aimsSpine and spinal cord pathologies and associated neuropathic pain are among the most complex medical disorders to treat. While rodent models are widely used in spine and spinal cord research and have provided valuable insight into pathophysiological mechanisms, these models offer limited translatability. Thus, studies in rodent models have not led to the development of clinically effective therapies. More recently, swine has become a favored model for spine research because of the high congruency of the species to humans with respect to spine and spinal cord anatomy, vasculature, and immune responses. However, conventional breeds of swine commonly used in these studies present practical and translational hurdles due to their rapid growth toward weights well above those of humans.

methodsIn the current study, we evaluated the suitability of a human-sized breed of swine developed at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the Wisconsin Miniature Swine

resultsThe key finding of this study is that WMS spine more closely models the human spine for many of the measured vertebrae parameters, while being similar to conventional swine in respect to the other parameters.

conclusionWMS provides an improvement over conventional swine for use in translational spinal cord injury studies, particularly long-term ones, because of its slower rate of growth and its maximum growth being limited to human weight and size.

Indexed as

Animal modelsMiniature swineSpinal cord injurySpine anatomySwine modelsThoracic vertebrae

Identifiers

PMID31000959
PMCPMC6470333
OpenAlexW2884008959

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.