ArticleJournal of neuroscience methods2023
An updated Barnes maze protocol for assessing the outcome of controlled cortical impact mouse models of traumatic brain injury.
Article in Journal of neuroscience methods, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cognitive Deficits in Female GPR158 Knockout Mice Revealed by Automated Home-Cage Testing.Genes, brain, and behavior · 2026Article
- Alpha Lipoic Acid Mitigates TBI-Induced Neuroinflammation by Regulating S100B/STIM Signaling via NF-ƙB Pathway.Molecular neurobiology · 2026Article
- Reversal of diabetes-associated cognitive impairment through modulation of BDNF, insulin, and NF-κB pathways by a marketed herbal formulation.3 Biotech · 2026Article
- Late-life methionine restriction attenuates neuroinflammation in Alzheimer's disease mice via FGF21 activation in a metabolism-independent manner.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2026Article
- Olfactory ensheathing cells exosomes enhance neurological recovery in brain-injured rats by modulating Nrf2-ferroptosis pathway.Bioengineering & translational medicine · 2026Article
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
Abstract
backgroundThe Barnes Maze (BM) is a common method of testing cognitive deficits in rodents. Adapting BM protocols for specific neurological disorders could potentially aid in more effective testing, reduce research time, and help decrease variability between studies. NEW
methodWe tested differences an updated, shortened BM consisting of 6 days, 3 trials per day, only covering the equivalent of the spatial acquisition week BM protocol and a probe trial day consisting of one trial (7 total days).
resultsKaplan-Meier plots of escape percentage as a function of total latency showed a significant difference between control and CCI mice in the updated protocol on days 3 through 6. Additionally, probe trial data showed significant differences in primary latency, primary errors, and returns to goal. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING
methodsWe tested differences between a traditional 5 days per week, 2 trials per day, spatial acquisition and reversal weeks BM protocol (12 total days with probe trials) with an updated 6-day BM protocol (7 total days with probe trial). In the probe trial, the updated protocol control mice showed an over 5-fold decrease in primary latency and primary errors and a 4.6-fold increase in returns to goal compared to the traditional protocol. Additionally, mice in both protocols performed similarly on a trial-by-trial basis suggesting that the changes made for the updated protocol increased learning and memory and was not simply an easier task.
conclusionThe updated BM protocol showed an improved ability to distinguish between control and CCI mice and promoted improved and more consistent learning for both the control and CCI groups.
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.