Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39244088›Full record

ReviewCurrent opinion in insect science2024

Integrating computer vision and molecular neurobiology to bridge the gap between behavior and the brain.

Ian M Traniello, Sarah D Kocher

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current opinion in insect science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Ian M TranielloLewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA; Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA. Electronic address: it4770@princeton.edu.
Sarah D KocherLewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA; Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA.

Funding

What makes - and breaks - a social brain?DP2GM137424 · NIGMS · PRINCETON UNIVERSITY · PI KOCHER, SARAH D · 2019 to 2019
$2.4M
Howard Hughes Medical InstituteNIGMS NIH HHS DP2 GM137424
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The past decade of social insect research has seen rapid development in automated behavioral tracking and molecular profiling of the nervous system, two distinct but complementary lines of inquiry into phenotypic variation across individuals, colonies, populations, and species. These experimental strategies have developed largely in parallel, as automated tracking generates a continuous stream of behavioral data, while, in contrast, 'omics-based profiling provides a single 'snapshot' of the brain. Better integration of these approaches applied to studying variation in social behavior will reveal the underlying genetic and neurobiological mechanisms that shape the evolution and diversification of social life. In this review, we discuss relevant advances in both fields and propose new strategies to better elucidate the molecular and behavioral innovations that generate social life.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalBrainInsectaNeurobiologySocial BehaviorAnimals

Identifiers

PMID39244088
PMCPMC11611617

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.