ArticleMethodsX2021
The cage test as an easy way to screen and evaluate spontaneous activity in preclinical neuroscience studies.
Article in MethodsX, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ameliorating effect of veratric acid against mercury-induced neurologic deficit and reproductive toxicity in female rats.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
- Chronic alcohol consumption alters home-cage behaviors and responses to ethologically relevant predator tasks in mice.Alcoholism, clinical and experimental research · 2022Article
- Incorporating inter-individual variability in experimental design improves the quality of results of animal experiments.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Within behavioral neuroscience, subjects used to be randomly assigned to the experimental groups based on the premise that interindividual variability will be homogeneously distributed. However, the equivalence offered by randomization diminishes in small samples, which is the case for most experiments in the field. In rodents, it is well-recognized that individual differences in psychomotor reactivity, risk-assessment behaviors, and emotional responsiveness modulate the effects of different pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments. For that reason, knowing such differences before the experiment provides highly valuable information for balancing the groups so that the interindividual variability is equally distributed within the groups without excluding subjects as far as possible. Because unconditioned anxiety tests such as the open-field (OF) and the elevated plus-maze are commonly used within experimental procedures, we developed a strategy to explore the rat's behavioral phenotype by assessing it in a very innocuous testing context: a housing cage.•We offer a very straightforward protocol for assessing spontaneous, novelty-induced reactivity in rodents.•We describe its implementation, analysis, and use, as well as some suggestions about key behavioral readouts for the group allocation procedure.•The current protocol provides an alternative strategy to assess a reasonably wide range of behavioral outcomes, most of which are of great interest in modeling different neuropsychiatric disorders.
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.