Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33101067›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychiatry2020

The Role of Zebrafish and Laboratory Rodents in Schizophrenia Research.

Veronika Langova, Karel Vales, Petra Horka, Jiri Horacek

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing 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

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Beyond vertebrates:Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Open field test for the assessment of anxiety-like behavior inFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Advantages and Limitations of Animal Schizophrenia Models.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022
    Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Veronika LangovaTranslational Neuroscience, National Institute of Mental Health, Prague, Czechia.
Karel ValesTranslational Neuroscience, National Institute of Mental Health, Prague, Czechia.
Petra HorkaInstitute for Environmental Studies, Faculty of Science, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.
Jiri HoracekThird Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, Prague, Czechia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Schizophrenia is a severe disorder characterized by positive, negative and cognitive symptoms, which are still not fully understood. The development of efficient antipsychotics requires animal models of a strong validity, therefore the aims of the article were to summarize the construct, face and predictive validity of schizophrenia models based on rodents and zebrafish, to compare the advantages and disadvantages of these models, and to propose future directions in schizophrenia modeling and indicate when it is reasonable to combine these models. The advantages of rodent models stem primarily from the high homology between rodent and human physiology, neurochemistry, brain morphology and circuitry. The advantages of zebrafish models stem in the high fecundity, fast development and transparency of the embryo. Disadvantages of both models originate in behavioral repertoires not allowing specific symptoms to be modeled, even when the models are combined. Especially modeling the verbal component of certain positive, negative and cognitive symptoms is currently impossible.

Indexed as

animal modelslaboratory rodentsmodel validityneurobiologyschizophreniaschizophrenia symptomszebrafish

Identifiers

PMID33101067
PMCPMC7500259

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.