Abstract: We tested for social learning and imitation in common marmosets using an artificial foraging task and trained conspecific demonstrators. We trained a demonstrator marmoset to open an artificial fruit, providing a full demonstration of the task to be learned. Another marmoset provided a partial demonstration, controlling for stimulus enhancement effects, by eating food from the outside of the apparatus. We thus compared three observer groups, each consisting of four animals: those that received the full demonstration, those that received the partial demonstration, and a control group that saw no demonstration prior to testing. Although none of the observer marmosets succeeded in opening the artificial fruit during the test periods, there were clear effects of demonstration type. Those that saw the full demonstration manipulated the apparatus more overall, whereas those from the control group manipulated it the least of the three groups. Those from the full-demonstration group also contacted the particular parts of the artificial fruit that they had seen touched (localised stimulus enhancement) to a greater extent than the other two groups. There was also an interaction between the number of hand and mouth touches made to the artificial fruit for the full- and partial-demonstration groups. Whether or not these data represent evidence for imitation is discussed. We also propose that the clear differences between the groups suggest that social learning mechanisms provide real benefits to these animals in terms of developing novel food-processing skills analogous to the one presented here.

Abstract: Background The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias has been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. Until recently, outcome reporting bias has received less attention. Methodology/Principal Findings We review and summarise the evidence from a series of cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias and outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Sixteen studies were eligible of which only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Eleven of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. Conclusions Recent work provides direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

Abstract: Summary Reasons for performing study: Bone strains quantify skeletal effects of specific exercise and hence assist in designing training programmes to avoid bone injury. Objective: To test whether compressive strains increase on the lateral surface of the inside third metacarpal bone (McIII) and the medial surface of the outside McIII in a turn. Methods: Rosette strain gauges on dorsal, medial and lateral surfaces of the midshaft of the left McIII in 2 Thoroughbred geldings were recorded simultaneously during turning at the walk on a bitumen surface. Results: Medial surface: Compression peaks were larger in the outside limb. Tension peaks were larger in the inside limb and in a tighter turn. On the lateral surface compression and tension peaks were larger on the inside limb, which showed the largest recorded strains (compression of -1400 microstrains). Dorsal compression strains were larger on the outside limb and on a larger circle. Tensile strains were similar in both directions and larger on a larger circle. Conclusions: Compressive strains increased on the lateral surface of the inside McIII and medial surface of the outside McIII in a turn. Potential relevance: Slow-speed turning exercise may be sufficient to maintain bone mechanical characteristics in the inside limb lateral McIII cortex. Further work is needed to confirm these findings and to determine whether faster gaits and/or tighter turns are sufficient to cause bone modelling levels of strain in the medial and lateral McIII cortex.