ReviewFrontiers in physiology2020
E Pluribus Octo - Building Consensus on Standards of Care and Experimentation in Cephalopod Research; a Historical Outlook.
Review in Frontiers in physiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cephalopod Behavior: From Neural Plasticity to Consciousness.Frontiers in systems neuroscience · 2021Pooled it
- FELASA Working Group report: Capture and transport of live cephalopods - recommendations for scientific purposes.Laboratory animals · 2024Article
- Article
- Welcome to the nursery.Nature methods · 2023Article
- Deciphering regeneration through non-model animals: A century of experiments on cephalopod mollusks and an outlook at the future.Frontiers in cell and developmental biology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Directive 2010/63/EU "on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes" originally induced some concern among cephalopod researchers, because of the inclusion of cephalopod mollusks as the only invertebrates among the protected species. Here we reflect on the challenges and issues raised by the Directive on cephalopod science, and discuss some of the arguments that elicited discussion within the scientific community, to facilitate the implementation of the Directive 2010/63/EU in the scientific research context. A short overview of the aims of the COST Action FA1301 "Cephs
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.