Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38374201›Full record

ReviewJournal of animal science and biotechnology2024

Finding biomarkers of experience in animals.

Sarah Babington, Alan J Tilbrook, Shane K Maloney, Jill N Fernandes, Tamsyn M Crowley, Luoyang Ding, Archa H Fox, Song Zhang, Elise A Kho, Daniel Cozzolino and 2 more

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

12 authors.

Sarah BabingtonSchool of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1825-4514
Alan J TilbrookCentre for Animal Science, The Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1116-1470
Shane K MaloneySchool of Human Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5878-2266
Jill N FernandesSchool of Veterinary Science, The University of Queensland, Gatton, QLD, 4343, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7704-072X
Tamsyn M CrowleySchool of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, 3217, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3698-8917
Luoyang DingSchool of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5180-6723
Archa H FoxSchool of Human Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1962-270X
Song ZhangSchool of Human Sciences, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0001-6211-4762
Elise A KhoCentre for Animal Science, The Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7126-3815
Daniel CozzolinoCentre for Nutrition and Food Sciences, The Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6247-8817
Timothy J MahonyCentre for Animal Science, The Queensland Alliance for Agriculture and Food Innovation, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, 4072, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4573-7906
Dominique BlacheSchool of Agriculture and Environment, The University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, 6009, Australia. dominique.blache@uwa.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3476-3068

Funding

Australasian Pork Research Institute 5A-113Meat and Livestock Australia P.PSH.1232
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

At a time when there is a growing public interest in animal welfare, it is critical to have objective means to assess the way that an animal experiences a situation. Objectivity is critical to ensure appropriate animal welfare outcomes. Existing behavioural, physiological, and neurobiological indicators that are used to assess animal welfare can verify the absence of extremely negative outcomes. But welfare is more than an absence of negative outcomes and an appropriate indicator should reflect the full spectrum of experience of an animal, from negative to positive. In this review, we draw from the knowledge of human biomedical science to propose a list of candidate biological markers (biomarkers) that should reflect the experiential state of non-human animals. The proposed biomarkers can be classified on their main function as endocrine, oxidative stress, non-coding molecular, and thermobiological markers. We also discuss practical challenges that must be addressed before any of these biomarkers can become useful to assess the experience of an animal in real-life.

Indexed as

Animal experienceAnimal welfareBiomarkerStressWelfare assessment

Identifiers

PMID38374201
PMCPMC10877933

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.