Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34434792›Full record

ArticleMethodsX2021

The cage test as an easy way to screen and evaluate spontaneous activity in preclinical neuroscience studies.

Mijail Rojas-Carvajal, Daniel Quesada-Yamasaki, Juan C Brenes

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.7field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mijail Rojas-CarvajalInstitute for Psychological Research, University of Costa Rica Costa Rica.
Daniel Quesada-YamasakiNeuroscience Research Center, University of Costa Rica Costa Rica.
Juan C BrenesInstitute for Psychological Research, University of Costa Rica Costa Rica.
Universidad de Costa Rica · CR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Balanced group assignmentBehavioral analysisGroomingRisk-assessmentScreening testUltrasonic vocalizationsUnconditioned anxiety

Identifiers

PMID34434792
PMCPMC8374250
OpenAlexW3129884138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.