Cited by 416Neuroendocrine regulation and behaviorNeuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyStress Responses and Cortisol

Problems with measuring peripheral oxytocin: can the data on oxytocin and human behavior be trusted?

Open access
McCullough, Michael E., Churchland, Patricia Smith, Mendez, Armando J.·2013·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

Research on the neurobiological and behavioral effects of oxytocin (OT), as well as on its possible therapeutic applications, has intensified in the past decade. Accurate determination of peripheral OT levels is essential to reach meaningful conclusions and to motivate, support and inform clinical interventions. Different, but concordant, methods for measuring plasma OT have been developed over the past four decades, but since 2004 several commercially available methods have been favored in research with humans. Evaluation of these methods reveals that they lack reliability when used on unextracted samples of human fluids, and that they tag molecules in addition to OT, yielding estimates that are wildly discrepant with an extensive body of earlier findings that were obtained using methods that are well validated, but more laborious. An accurate, specific, and readily available method for measuring OT that can be adopted as the standard in the field is urgently needed for advances in our understanding of OT's roles in cognition and behavior.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.04.018

Cites

107 of 107 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 108 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Kaufman, E., Lamster, I.B., 2002. The diagnostic applications of saliva-a review. Crit. Rev. Oral Biol. Med. 13, 197-212.
  2. Kirschbaum, C., Hellhammer, D.H., 2000. Salivary cortisol. In: Fink, G. (Ed.), Encyclo- pedia of Stress. Academic Press, San Diego, CA, pp. 379-383.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McCullough, M. E., Churchland, P. S., & Mendez, A. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Miami (US)
  • University of California San Diego (US)
Corresponding author
Mendez, Armando J.
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-09
Volume
37
Issue
8
Pages
1485-1492
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2124961114
Cited by
416
References
108
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 42 · 2020: 32 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 46 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 9
FWCI
5.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Neuroendocrine regulation and behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuropeptides and Animal Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Behavioral Neuroscience › Stress Responses and Cortisol
Keywords
oxytocin, assay validation, method reliability, cross-reactivity
MeSH terms
Humans, Immunoenzyme Techniques, Oxytocin, Radioimmunoassay, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review