ReviewNeural regeneration research2023
Gait analysis in swine, sheep, and goats after neurologic injury: a literature review.
Review in Neural regeneration research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Establishment of a novel deep learning-based method for gait analysis after peripheral nerve injury in pigs.Regenerative therapy · 2026Article
- Development of Intervertebral Disc Organoids through Directed Differentiation of Mesenchymal Stem Cells and Hierarchical 3D Printing.ACS nano · 2026Article
- Advancements in Neonatal Brain Injury Treatment: Nanomedicine-Based Strategies.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Unconventional Non-rodent Models in Neurological Research: Exploring New Paths to Translational Insights.Journal of molecular neuroscience : MN · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical research on neurologic ailments requires representative animal models to validate treatments before they are translated to human clinical trials. Rodents are the predominant animal model used in neurological research despite limited anatomic and physiologic similarities to humans. As a result, functional testing designed to assess locomotor recovery after neurologic impairment is well established in rodent models. Comparatively, larger, more clinically relevant models have not been as well studied. To achieve similar locomotor testing standardization in larger animals, the models must be accessible to a wide array of researchers. Non-human primates are the most relevant animal model for translational research, however ethical and financial barriers limit their accessibility. This review focuses on swine, sheep, and goats as large animal alternatives for transitional studies between rodents and non-human primates. The objective of this review is to compare motor testing and data collection methods used in swine, sheep, and goats to encourage testing standardization in these larger animal models. The PubMed database was analyzed by searching combinations of swine, sheep, and goats, neurologic injuries, and functional assessments. Findings were categorized by animal model, data collection method, and assessment design. Swine and sheep were used in the majority of the studies, while only two studies were found using goats. The functional assessments included open pen analysis, treadmill walking, and guided free walking. Data collection methods included subjective behavioral rating scales and objective tools such as pressure-sensitive mats and image-based analysis software. Overall, swine and sheep were well-suited for a variety of assessment designs, with treadmill walking and guided free walking offering the most consistency across multiple trials. Data collection methods varied, but image-based gait analysis software provided the most robust analysis. Future studies should be conducted to standardize functional testing methods after neurologic impairment in large animals.
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.