ReviewCognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience2026
Incorporating farm animal models for the study of neuropsychiatric diseases: Expansion of the possibilities.
Review in Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Neuropsychiatric disorders are highly prevalent but particularly difficult to study. Animal models have been developed to understand the pathogenesis of these diseases and to develop treatments; however, the translational value of these findings has been limited. We discuss rodent and nonhuman primate (NHP) models for neuropsychiatric disorders and suggest farm animal models (FAMs) as a supplement or where NHP availability is limited and the scientific question allows it, as an alternative when feasible (i.e., when sufficient knowledge and validated methods exist). We discuss how farm animals can be relevant based on their anatomical, physiological, and brain functional similarity to humans, well-documented genetics, and complex higher cognitive functions. We discuss limitations of FAMs, including less availability of validated tools, relative lack of historical data, less expertise among livestock producers and scientists, and relatively limited understanding of functional neurocircuitry compared to rodents and NHPs. We offer guidance on the use of farm animals in research and emphasize the possibility of conducting semi-experimental studies on farms or in slaughterhouses. We argue that sustainability of research is enhanced by the availability of farm animal brains from the slaughterhouse, and generalizability is increased by using naturalistic, spontaneously occurring disease models, including from veterinary populations. The comparative validity, practicality, and ethics of using FAMs is discussed. We advocate for expanded basic science research of farm animal brains and behaviors, and conclude that FAMs may be advantageous for several reasons, although ultimately, the research question and available tools must guide the best choice of model.
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.