Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36051908›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in physiology2022

Differences in fear response strategy and stress susceptibility amongst four different commercial layer strains reared cage free.

Austin A Brown, Eric B Sobotik, Gabrielle M House, Jill R Nelson, Gregory S Archer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in physiology, 2022. 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
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

5 authors.

Austin A BrownDepartment of Poultry Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.
Eric B SobotikDepartment of Poultry Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.
Gabrielle M HouseDepartment of Poultry Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.
Jill R NelsonDepartment of Poultry Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.
Gregory S ArcherDepartment of Poultry Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Different commercial lines of laying hens may show varying levels of fearfulness in response to stressful events or situations. It is important to understand the differences in fear response and stress susceptibility. In this study, four commercial laying hen lines reared from hatch to 32 weeks of age in a cage free system Strains consisted of a brown egg laying line (Hyline Brown; HB) and three white egg laying lines (W36, W80, and LSL). Sixty hens from each strain were used. Each hen was assessed for fearfulness using the following tests: isolation (ISO), emergence (EMG), inversion (INV), and tonic immobility (TI). Stress was assessed based on physical asymmetry (ASYM), corticosterone (CORT) concentrations, and heterophil:lymphocyte ratio (HL). At 3 weeks of age, the W80 birds exhibited more vocalizations during ISO and a shorter duration to emerge than other lines except the HB birds during EMG. Conversely the W36 birds had fewer vocalizations during ISO and emerged quicker than other birds except the LSL during EMG. At 16 weeks of age, the LSL and the W36 bird demonstrated greater fear in TI than the HB. At 30 weeks of age, the observed fear response strategies of each strain changed from previous age and differences were observed between lines (

Indexed as

cage freefearlayerstressvariation

Identifiers

PMID36051908
PMCPMC9424751

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.