ReviewJournal of biomedical optics2019
Perspective review of optical imaging in welfare assessment in animal-based research.
Review in Journal of biomedical optics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- A self-retaining mouth prop for intraoral access during periodontal surgery in rat models: A technical note.Animal models and experimental medicine · 2026Article
- Perspectives of FTIR as Promising Tool for Pathogen Diagnosis, Sanitary and Welfare Monitoring in Animal Experimentation Models: A Review Based on Pertinent Literature.Microorganisms · 2024Review
- The impact of stress and anesthesia on animal models of infectious disease.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2023Review
- Article
- Vocalization-associated respiration patterns: thermography-based monitoring and detection of preparation for calling.The Journal of experimental biology · 2022Article
- An Anatomical Thermal 3D Model in Preclinical Research: Combining CT and Thermal Images.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Contactless Video-Based Heart Rate Monitoring of a Resting and an Anesthetized Pig.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021Article
- Refinement and validation of infrared thermal imaging (IRT): a non-invasive technique to measure disease activity in a mouse model of rheumatoid arthritis.Arthritis research & therapy · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To refine animal research, vital signs, activity, stress, and pain must be monitored. In chronic studies, some measures can be assessed using telemetry sensors. Although this methodology provides high-precision data, an initial surgery for device implantation is necessary, potentially leading to stress, wound infections, and restriction of motion. Recently, camera systems have been adapted for animal research. We give an overview of parameters that can be assessed using imaging in the visible, near-infrared, and thermal spectrum of light. It focuses on heart activity, respiration, oxygen saturation, and motion, as well as on wound analysis. For each parameter, we offer recommendations on the minimum technical requirements of appropriate systems, regions of interest, and light conditions, among others. In general, these systems demonstrate great performance. For heart and respiratory rate, the error was <4 beats / min and 5 breaths/min. Furthermore, the systems are capable of tracking animals during different behavioral tasks. Finally, studies indicate that inhomogeneous temperature distribution around wounds might be an indicator of (pending) infections. In sum, camera-based techniques have several applications in animal research. As vital parameters are currently only assessed in sedated animals, the next step should be the integration of these modalities in home-cage monitoring.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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 OpenQuestion graph.