Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38304257›Full record

ArticleCurrent research in toxicology2024

Tests for learning and memory in rodent regulatory studies.

Charles V Vorhees, Michael T Williams

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current research in toxicology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. [Relationship between cerebral dominance and learning styles in Anesthesiology residents].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Observational
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Charles V VorheesDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and Division of Neurology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH 45229, USA.
Michael T WilliamsDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine and Division of Neurology, Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, Cincinnati, OH 45229, USA.
Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center · US

Funding

REPRODUCTIVE AND DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICOLOGY RESEARCHP30ES006096 · NIEHS · UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI · PI PINNEY, SUSAN MENGEL · 1992 to 2022
$35.4M
Gene-pesticide interactions and ADHDR01ES032270 · NIEHS · CINCINNATI CHILDRENS HOSP MED CTR · PI VORHEES, CHARLES V, WILLIAMS, MICHAEL T · 2020 to 2024
$2.2M
NIEHS NIH HHS P30 ES006096NIEHS NIH HHS R01 ES032270
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For decades, regulatory guidelines for safety assessment in rodents for drugs, chemicals, pesticides, and food additives with developmental neurotoxic potential have recommended a single test of learning and memory (L&M). In recent years some agencies have requested two such tests. Given the importance of higher cognitive function to health, and the fact that different types of L&M are mediated by different brain regions assessing higher functions represents a step forward in providing better evidence-based protection against adverse brain effects. Given the myriad of tests available for assessing L&M in rodents this leads to the question of which tests best fit regulatory guidelines. To address this question, we begin by describing the central role of two types of L&M essential to all mammalian species and the regions/networks that mediate them. We suggest that the tests recommended possess characteristics that make them well suited to the needs in regulatory safety studies. By brain region, these are (1) the hippocampus and entorhinal cortex for spatial navigation, which assesses explicit L&M for reference and episodic memory and (2) the striatum and related structures for egocentric navigation, which assesses implicit or procedural memory and path integration. Of the tests available, we suggest that in this context, the evidence supports the use of water mazes, specifically, the Morris water maze (MWM) for spatial L&M and the Cincinnati water maze (CWM) for egocentric/procedural L&M. We review the evidentiary basis for these tests, describe their use, and explain procedures that optimize their sensitivity.

Indexed as

Cognitive flexibilityCognitive tests for safety studiesDevelopmental neurotoxicity guideline studiesEgocentric memoryLearning and memoryNeurobehavioral regulatory studiesProcedural memoryRatsSpatial memory

Identifiers

PMID38304257
PMCPMC10832385
OpenAlexW4391069355

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.