Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39104408›Full record

ArticleiScience2024

Noxious stimulation induces self-protective behavior in bumblebees.

Matilda Gibbons, Elisa Pasquini, Amelia Kowalewska, Eva Read, Sam Gibson, Andrew Crump, Cwyn Solvi, Elisabetta Versace, Lars Chittka

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in iScience, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors.

Matilda GibbonsDepartment of Neuroscience, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Elisa PasquiniCenter for Mind/Brain Sciences, University of Trento, Rovereto 38068, Italy.
Amelia KowalewskaAcademic Training Team, The Francis Crick Institute, London NW1 1AT, UK.
Eva ReadDepartment of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, London School of Economics, London WC2A 2AE, UK.
Sam GibsonDepartment of Philosophy, Logic and Scientific Method, London School of Economics, London WC2A 2AE, UK.
Andrew CrumpDepartment of Pathobiology & Population Sciences, Royal Veterinary College, London NW1 0TU, UK.
Cwyn SolviGuangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Center for Brain Science and Brain-Inspired Intelligence, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou City, Guangdong Province 510515, China.
Elisabetta VersaceSchool of Biological and Behavioral Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, UK.
Lars ChittkaSchool of Biological and Behavioral Sciences, Queen Mary University of London, London E1 4NS, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

It has been widely stated that insects do not show self-protective behavior toward noxiously-stimulated body parts, but this claim has never been empirically tested. Here, we tested whether an insect species displays a type of self-protective behavior: self-grooming a noxiously-stimulated site. We touched bumblebees (

Indexed as

EntomologyNeuroscienceZoology

Identifiers

PMID39104408
PMCPMC11298632

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.