ReviewBiological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society2025
Critical insights into the potential risks of antipsychotic drugs to fish, including through effects on behaviour.
Review in Biological reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Preliminary Data Regarding the Potential of Oxytocin to Modulate Aggressive Behaviour in a VPA-Based Animal Model of Autism Spectrum Disorder.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Refining methodological approaches for analysing higher-throughput locomotor behaviour, using generalized additive mixed models.Frontiers in toxicology · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Antipsychotic drugs (APDs) are a diverse class of neuroactive pharmaceuticals increasingly detected in surface and ground waters globally. Some APDs are classified as posing a high environmental risk, due, in part, to their tendency to bioaccumulate in wildlife, including fish. Additional risk drivers for APDs relate to their behavioural effects, potentially impacting fitness outcomes. However, standard ecotoxicological tests used in environmental risk assessment (ERA) do not currently account for these mechanisms. In this review, we critically appraise the environmental risks of APDs to fish. We begin by reading-across from human and mammalian effects data to standard ecotoxicological effects endpoints in fish. We then explore the wide range of behaviours suitable for ecotoxicological assessment of APDs (and other neuroactive) pharmaceuticals, principally through laboratory studies with zebrafish, and assess the potential for using these behavioural phenotypes to predict adverse individual- and population-level outcomes in wild fish, taking into account phenotypic plasticity. Next, we illustrate the advantages and challenges of measuring and applying behavioural endpoints for fish, including within current regulatory risk assessments. In our final analysis, the implications of relying on apical endpoints for ERA of neuroactive drugs (including APDs) are assessed and recommendations provided for the development of a more refined and tailored mechanistic approach, which would enable more robust assessment of their environmental risk(s).
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.