Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40929174›Full record

ArticleeLife2025

Jessica A Haley, Tianyi Chen, Mikio Aoi, Sreekanth H Chalasani

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in eLife, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. eLife · 2025
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Update of
    2025
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jessica A HaleyNeurosciences Graduate Program, University of California, San Diego, San Diego, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6282-7124
Tianyi ChenMolecular Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-7572-2155
Mikio AoiHalıcıoğlu Data Science Institute, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7052-880X
Sreekanth H ChalasaniMolecular Neurobiology Laboratory, Salk Institute for Biological Studies, La Jolla, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2522-8338

Funding

Dissecting neural mechanisms integrating multiple inputs in C.elegansR01MH096881 · NIMH · SALK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES · PI CHALASANI, SREEKANTH H. · 2013 to 2022
$4.8M
Dissecting neural mechanisms integrating multiple inputs in C. elegansR56MH096881 · NIMH · SALK INSTITUTE FOR BIOLOGICAL STUDIES · PI CHALASANI, SREEKANTH H., HART, MICHAEL P · 2023 to 2024
$1.2M
National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program DGE-1650112NIH HHS RO1 MH096881NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH096881NIMH NIH HHS R56 MH096881Salk Institute for Biological Studies Innovation GrantUniversity of California, San Diego Undergraduate Summer Research Award
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Decision-making is a ubiquitous component of animal behavior that is often studied in the context of foraging. Foragers make a series of decisions while locating food (food search), choosing between food types (diet or patch choice), and allocating time spent within patches of food (patch-leaving). Here, we introduce a framework for investigating foraging decisions using detailed analysis of individual behavior and quantitative modeling in the nematode

Indexed as

Caenorhabditis elegansDecision MakingFeeding BehaviorAnimalsC. eleganscomputational biologydecision-makingdietary choiceexploitationexplorationforagingneurosciencequantitative modelingsystems biology

Identifiers

PMID40929174
PMCPMC12422737

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 Socratic graph.