ArticleScientific reports2023
Explainable automated pain recognition in cats.
Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Artificial Intelligence-Based Decoding of Animal Micro-Expressions: A Review of Methodological Advances and Translational Applications.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Comparing the performance of deep learning video-based models and trained veterinarians in cattle pain assessment.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Agreement of Feline Grimace Scale scores between chatbots and an expert rater.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of Topical Long-Acting Buprenorphine in New Zealand White Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus).Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2025Article
- A segment-based framework for explainability in animal affective computing.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Part I: understanding pain in pigs-basic knowledge about pain assessment, measures and therapy.Porcine health management · 2025Review
- Comparison between AI and human expert performance in acute pain assessment in sheep.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Automated video-based pain recognition in cats using facial landmarks.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Computational investigation of the social function of domestic cat facial signals.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Automated acute pain prediction in domestic goats using deep learning-based models on video-recordings.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- From facial expressions to algorithms: a narrative review of animal pain recognition technologies.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Review
- Automated landmark-based cat facial analysis and its applications.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Manual tools for pain assessment from facial expressions have been suggested and validated for several animal species. However, facial expression analysis performed by humans is prone to subjectivity and bias, and in many cases also requires special expertise and training. This has led to an increasing body of work on automated pain recognition, which has been addressed for several species, including cats. Even for experts, cats are a notoriously challenging species for pain assessment. A previous study compared two approaches to automated 'pain'/'no pain' classification from cat facial images: a deep learning approach, and an approach based on manually annotated geometric landmarks, reaching comparable accuracy results. However, the study included a very homogeneous dataset of cats and thus further research to study generalizability of pain recognition to more realistic settings is required. This study addresses the question of whether AI models can classify 'pain'/'no pain' in cats in a more realistic (multi-breed, multi-sex) setting using a more heterogeneous and thus potentially 'noisy' dataset of 84 client-owned cats. Cats were a convenience sample presented to the Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery of the University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover and included individuals of different breeds, ages, sex, and with varying medical conditions/medical histories. Cats were scored by veterinary experts using the Glasgow composite measure pain scale in combination with the well-documented and comprehensive clinical history of those patients; the scoring was then used for training AI models using two different approaches. We show that in this context the landmark-based approach performs better, reaching accuracy above 77% in pain detection as opposed to only above 65% reached by the deep learning approach. Furthermore, we investigated the explainability of such machine recognition in terms of identifying facial features that are important for the machine, revealing that the region of nose and mouth seems more important for machine pain classification, while the region of ears is less important, with these findings being consistent across the models and techniques studied here.
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.