Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42473766›Full record

ArticleBiology open2026

Response feature analyses for repeated measures behavioral data.

Daniel T Burns, Ken G Gerow

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Biology open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Daniel T BurnsDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071, USA.ORCID 0009-0004-5862-6935
Ken G GerowDepartment of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82071, USA.

Funding

Wyoming INBRE Phase 4- Equipment Supplement for x-ray diffractometer for Center for Advanced Scientific InstrumentationP20GM103432 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF WYOMING · PI Nicolas A. Blouin · 2012 to 2026
$56.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS P20 GM103432NIGMS NIH HHS P20GM103432NIH HHS P20GM103432University of Wyoming
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Repeated measures designs are a common experimental setup in biology, from ecology to biomedical sciences. Traditional statistical techniques for analyzing such data, such as repeated measures ANOVA (RMANOVA), have limitations that prevent them from being used to answer many questions relevant to measurements taken over time. Response feature analysis (RFA) techniques can provide an ideal means for answering those questions by analyzing data based on a creatively chosen summary function of the individual subject's data. The process and rationale for the RFA is laid out in a step-by-step manner and is demonstrated on an example of behavioral data from a rodent spinal cord injury study. In the original analysis, a difference in average functional score was only found at one timepoint early in the study. Using RFA, we show that the female rats reached 90% of their peak recovery 15.3 days (95% CI 1.73, 28.86 days) earlier than the male rats. RFA enables answering the important question 'do the two sexes differ in the speed at which they recover functional ability?', and, by way of demonstration, illustrates its flexibility in answering questions that traditional repeated measures analyses cannot.

Indexed as

Behavior, AnimalAnimalsFemaleMaleRatsRecovery of FunctionSpinal Cord InjuriesBehaviorFunctional recoveryLongitudinal data analysisRepeated measuresResponse feature analysisSpinal cord injury

Identifiers

PMID42473766
PMCPMC13488402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.