Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38903880›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2024

Choice-based severity scale (CSS): assessing the relative severity of procedures from a laboratory animal's perspective.

Lauren Cassidy, Stefan Treue, Alexander Gail, Dana Pfefferle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Lauren CassidyWelfare and Cognition Group, Cognitive Neuroscience Lab, German Primate Center, Goettingen, Lower Saxony, Germany.
Stefan TreueWelfare and Cognition Group, Cognitive Neuroscience Lab, German Primate Center, Goettingen, Lower Saxony, Germany.
Alexander GailWelfare and Cognition Group, Cognitive Neuroscience Lab, German Primate Center, Goettingen, Lower Saxony, Germany.
Dana PfefferleWelfare and Cognition Group, Cognitive Neuroscience Lab, German Primate Center, Goettingen, Lower Saxony, Germany.

Funding

German Research Foundation ResearchLeibniz ScienceCampus Primate Cognition
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One primary goal of laboratory animal welfare science is to provide a comprehensive severity assessment of the experimental and husbandry procedures or conditions these animals experience. The severity, or degree of suffering, of these conditions experienced by animals are typically scored based on anthropocentric assumptions. We propose to (a) assess an animal's subjective experience of condition severity, and (b) not only rank but scale different conditions in relation to one another using choice-based preference testing. The Choice-based Severity Scale (CSS) utilizes animals' relative preferences for different conditions, which are compared by how much reward is needed to outweigh the perceived severity of a given condition. Thus, this animal-centric approach provides a common scale for condition severity based on the animal's perspective. To assess and test the CSS concept, we offered three opportunistically selected male rhesus macaques (

Indexed as

Animals, LaboratoryAnimal WelfareChoice BehaviorMacaca mulattaAnimalsBehavior, AnimalMaleRewardAnimal researchAnimal welfareChoicePreferenceSeverity assessmentSubjective experiences

Identifiers

PMID38903880
PMCPMC11188928

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.