SynthesisScientific reports2026
Activity as a readout parameter for neurobehavioral research and severity assessment in laboratory rodents: a systematic comparison and meta-analysis of measurement techniques.
Synthesis in Scientific reports, 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
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite the widespread use of locomotion and activity analyses in neurobehavioral research and severity assessment, comparative evidence on the sensitivity and informative value of available monitoring techniques remains limited. Our study addresses these gaps by systematically evaluating activity data from multiple techniques across different interventions and disease models. The meta-analysis of datasets from the DFG FOR2591 consortium assessed how horizontal activity and locomotion change following surgical procedures, during stress paradigms, and in non-genetic and genetic disease models. Invasive interventions consistently resulted in post-surgical declines in activity, while neurological and psychiatric models were associated either with hypo- or hyperlocomotion, highlighting the bidirectional nature of activity alterations. A comparative evaluation of the techniques revealed that continuous home-cage telemetry and video-based tracking during the dark phase were more sensitive than clinical scoring systems, Neuroscores, or Open field tests. Voluntary wheel running emerged as the most informative of the alternatives. The analysis supports the integration of automated, continuous monitoring technologies to overcome the limitations of traditional daytime and observer-dependent methods. Since horizontal activity and locomotion have proven to be valuable readout parameters for most interventions and disease models, it is recommended that a sensitive analysis be integrated into multidimensional approaches to severity assessment.
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.