ArticleFrontiers in behavioral neuroscience2021
PEERS - An Open Science "Platform for the Exchange of Experimental Research Standards" in Biomedicine.
Article in Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Role of Chemoinformatics in Accelerating Drug Discovery: A Computational Approach.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2024Article
- Practical solutions for including sex as a biological variable (SABV) in preclinical neuropsychopharmacological research.Journal of neuroscience methods · 2024Review
- Knowledge gaps in psychedelic medicalisation: Preclinical and neuroimaging mechanisms.Neuroscience applied · 2024Review
- How stra(i)nge are your controls? A comparative analysis of metabolic phenotypes in commonly used C57BL/6 substrains.PloS one · 2023Article
- The EQIPD framework for rigor in the design, conduct, analysis and documentation of animal experiments.Nature methods · 2022Article
- Editorial: Animal Models of Anxiety and Depression: Exploring the Underlying Mechanisms of Sex Differences.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Laboratory workflows and preclinical models have become increasingly diverse and complex. Confronted with the dilemma of a multitude of information with ambiguous relevance for their specific experiments, scientists run the risk of overlooking critical factors that can influence the planning, conduct and results of studies and that should have been considered
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.