Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33898291›Full record

ArticleOpen veterinary journal

Little brainiacs and big dummies: Are we selecting for stupid, stout, or small dogs?

Mark Rishniw, Curtis W Dewey

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Open veterinary journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mark RishniwDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Curtis W DeweyDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, 14853, USA.
Cornell University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Brain size has been associated with intelligence of various orders and families of animals, leading to the concept of encephalization. Brain size scales with body weight between species within mammals to approximately the 0.67 power. However, within species, this scaling exponent appears to be much smaller (approximately 0.27 power). Aim: We examined whether this relationship has persisted in dogs over the 120 years since this was originally observed. Methods: Comparative cross-sectional study of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data obtained from 127 dogs, compared to historical data from 157 dogs and 24 non-dog canid species. Results: Brain size in dogs measured by MRI had a scaling exponent virtually identical to that observed previously (0.24 Conclusions: We interpreted the slight reduction in relative brain size to be a function of increased obesity in the study cohort compared to dogs examined 120 years ago. Further, we suggest that dog brains have a finite lower size limit. Finally, concepts of encephalization should not be applied to dogs.

Indexed as

Biological EvolutionIntelligenceAnimalsBody WeightBrainCanidaeCross-Sectional StudiesDogsMagnetic Resonance ImagingOrgan SizePhylogenySpecies SpecificityBrain sizeCanineEncephalization

Identifiers

PMID33898291
PMCPMC8057212
OpenAlexW3142410234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.