Cross-species anxiety tests in psychiatry: pitfalls and promises

Abstract

Behavioural anxiety tests in non-human animals are used for anxiolytic drug discovery, and to investigate the neurobiology of threat avoidance. Over the past decade, several of them were translated to humans with three clinically relevant goals: to assess potential efficacy of candidate treatments in healthy humans; to develop diagnostic tests or biomarkers; and to elucidate the pathophysiology of anxiety disorders. In this review, we scrutinise these promises and compare seven anxiety tests that are validated across species: five approach-avoidance conflict tests, unpredictable shock anticipation, and the social intrusion test in children. Regarding the first goal, three tests appear suitable for anxiolytic drug screening in humans. However, they have not become part of the drug development pipeline and achieving this may require independent confirmation of predictive validity and cost-effectiveness. Secondly, two tests have shown potential to measure clinically relevant individual differences, but their psychometric properties, predictive value, and clinical applicability need to be clarified. Finally, cross-species research has not yet revealed new evidence that the physiology of healthy human behaviour in anxiety tests relates to the physiology of anxiety symptoms in patients. To summarise, cross-species anxiety tests could be rendered useful for drug screening and for development of diagnostic instruments. Using these tests for aetiology research in healthy humans or animals needs to be queried and may turn out to be unrealistic.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 78 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.