MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3173155042 · doi:10.26685/urncst.267

Animal Models of Psychiatric Disorders: A Literature Review

2021· review· en· W3173155042 on OpenAlexaff
Arnavi Patel

Bibliographic record

VenueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) Journal · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEating disordersAnxietyPsychiatryPsychologyAddictionClinical psychologyAnimal modelDepression (economics)Medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Animal models have been used in many areas of research to provide insights into mechanisms and treatments for various disorders and diseases. For example, animals are often used in other areas of psychology, such as learning, with examples such as Pavlov’s dogs and Skinner’s rats. Further, animals have also been noted to exhibit psychiatric disorders that are frequently observed in humans, such as depression and anxiety. However, the use of animal models in other less studied fields of psychiatric research is unclear. This poses the questions: is the use of animals effective in studies of common mental health disorders? If so, what aspects of common mental health disorders do current studies focus on? Further, can disorders that have lower prevalence rates also be studied with the use of animals? This paper reviews the use of animals in the study of obsessive-compulsive related disorders of addiction, eating disorders, and trichotillomania (a disorder of compulsive hair-pulling) to answer these questions. Methods: Addiction, eating disorders, and trichotillomania were examined based on ease of study in non-human animals, and sufficient available literature. Nine articles for each disorder were examined to determine types of animals used, and the purpose of animal models in the study. Results: Research shows animal models are often used to study the etiology, genetics, mechanisms, and neurochemistry of psychiatric disorders. Animal models have high validity and translate well to humans. However, treatments of psychiatric disorders are less studied using animal models. Discussion: The review of the current literature suggests animal models are effective in studies of addiction, eating disorders, and trichotillomania. Animal models can be developed to inform various aspects of psychiatric disorders and should be expanded to include studies examining treatments as well. Further, food addiction also should be further assessed using animal models. Conclusion: Overall, animal models are useful in studying various aspects of psychiatric disorders and should continue to be used for those less commonly studied. Future studies with animal models should focus on psychiatric disorders that involve compulsive, repetitive behaviours.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.014
Science and technology studies0.0010.006
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.073
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.404 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUndergraduate Research in Natural and Clinical Science and Technology (URNCST) JournalSame topicObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum DisordersFrench-language works237,207