Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37268666›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Explainable automated pain recognition in cats.

Marcelo Feighelstein, Lea Henze, Sebastian Meller, Ilan Shimshoni, Ben Hermoni, Michael Berko, Friederike Twele, Alexandra Schütter, Nora Dorn, Sabine Kästner and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
9.1field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of Topical Long-Acting Buprenorphine in New Zealand White Rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus).Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science : JAALAS · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

15 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Marcelo Feighelstein *Information Systems Department, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Lea Henze *Department of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Sebastian MellerDepartment of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Ilan ShimshoniInformation Systems Department, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Ben HermoniFaculty of Electrical Engineering, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Michael BerkoFaculty of Electrical Engineering, Technion, Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
Friederike TweleDepartment of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Alexandra SchütterDepartment of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Nora DornDepartment of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Sabine KästnerDepartment of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Lauren FinkaCats Protection, National Cat Centre, Chelwood Gate, Sussex, UK.
Stelio P L LunaSchool of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, São Paulo State University (Unesp), São Paulo, Brazil.
Daniel S MillsSchool of Life Sciences, Joseph Bank Laboratories, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, UK.
Holger A VolkDepartment of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Anna ZamanskyInformation Systems Department, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel. annazam@is.haifa.ac.il.
University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation · DEUniversity of Haifa · ILTechnion – Israel Institute of Technology · ILUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BRUniversity of Lincoln · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

FacePainAnimalsCatsFacial ExpressionHumansNosePain Measurement

Identifiers

PMID37268666
PMCPMC10238514
OpenAlexW4379197633

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.