ArticleBiology open2026
Response feature analyses for repeated measures behavioral data.
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.
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
2 authors.
Funding
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
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.