ArticleDevelopmental neuroscience2025
Development of a New Scoring System in Higher Animals for Testing Cognitive Function in the Newborn Period: Effect of Prenatal Hypoxia-Ischemia.
Article in Developmental neuroscience, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Human Apolipoprotein E ε4 Allele Modulates Energy Substrate Availability, Seizure Burden, Mortality and Hippocampal Injury, Cell Death, and Inflammation after Neonatal Hypoxic-Ischemic Brain Injury.Developmental neuroscience · 2026Article
- Utilizing multivariate pattern analysis to uncover the neurobiological underpinnings of communication disorders in children with bilateral spastic cerebral palsy: insights from morphological and structural connectivity changes.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2026Article
- Targeting PERP promotes anti-tumor immunity in HNSCC by regulating tumor immune microenvironment and metabolic homeostasis.Molecular cancer · 2025Article
- Parahydrogen-Hyperpolarized Propane-The journal of physical chemistry. A · 2025Article
- Article
- Olfactory testing in infants with perinatal asphyxia: Enhancing encephalopathy risk stratification for future health outcomes.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2025Review
- Distinguishing Laterality in Brain Injury in Rabbit Fetal Magnetic Resonance Imaging Using Novel Volume Rendering Techniques.Developmental neuroscience · 2025Article
- CRP and D-dimer for risk stratification of cerebral infarction in children withFrontiers in neurologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEnhanced models for assessing cognitive function in the neonatal period are imperative in higher animals. Postnatal motor deficits, characteristic of cerebral palsy, emerge in newborn kits within our prenatal rabbit model of hypoxia-ischemia (HI). In humans, prenatal HI leads to intellectual disability and cerebral palsy. In a study examining cognitive function in newborn rabbits, we explored several questions. Is there a distinction between conditioned and unconditioned kits? Can the kits discern the human face or the laboratory coat? Do motorically normal kits, born after prenatal HI, exhibit cognitive deficits?
methodsThe conditioning protocol was randomly assigned to kits from each litter. For conditioning, the same human, wearing a laboratory coat, fed the rabbit kits for 9 days before the cognitive test. The 6-arm radial maze was chosen for its simplicity and ease of use. Normally appearing kits, born after uterine ischemia at 79% or 92% term in New Zealand White rabbits, were compared to naïve kits. On postpartum day 22/23 or 29/30, the 6-arm maze helped determine if the kits recognized the original feeder from bystander (test 1) or the laboratory coat on bystander (test 2). The use of masks of feeder/bystander (test 3) assessed confounding cues. A weighted score was devised to address variability in entry to maze arms, time, and repeated-trial learning.
resultsIn conditioned kits, both naïve and HI kits exhibited a significant preference for the face of the feeder but not the laboratory coat. Cognitive deficits were minimal in normal-appearing HI kits.
conclusionThe weighted score was amenable to statistical manipulation.
introductionEnhanced models for assessing cognitive function in the neonatal period are imperative in higher animals. Postnatal motor deficits, characteristic of cerebral palsy, emerge in newborn kits within our prenatal rabbit model of hypoxia-ischemia (HI). In humans, prenatal HI leads to intellectual disability and cerebral palsy. In a study examining cognitive function in newborn rabbits, we explored several questions. Is there a distinction between conditioned and unconditioned kits? Can the kits discern the human face or the laboratory coat? Do motorically normal kits, born after prenatal HI, exhibit cognitive deficits?
methodsThe conditioning protocol was randomly assigned to kits from each litter. For conditioning, the same human, wearing a laboratory coat, fed the rabbit kits for 9 days before the cognitive test. The 6-arm radial maze was chosen for its simplicity and ease of use. Normally appearing kits, born after uterine ischemia at 79% or 92% term in New Zealand White rabbits, were compared to naïve kits. On postpartum day 22/23 or 29/30, the 6-arm maze helped determine if the kits recognized the original feeder from bystander (test 1) or the laboratory coat on bystander (test 2). The use of masks of feeder/bystander (test 3) assessed confounding cues. A weighted score was devised to address variability in entry to maze arms, time, and repeated-trial learning.
resultsIn conditioned kits, both naïve and HI kits exhibited a significant preference for the face of the feeder but not the laboratory coat. Cognitive deficits were minimal in normal-appearing HI kits.
conclusionThe weighted score was amenable to statistical manipulation.
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.