Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39717789›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024

Automated landmark-based cat facial analysis and its applications.

George Martvel, Teddy Lazebnik, Marcelo Feighelstein, Sebastian Meller, Ilan Shimshoni, Lauren Finka, Stelio P L Luna, Daniel S Mills, Holger A Volk, Anna Zamansky

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. 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

10 authors.

George MartvelInformation Systems Department, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Teddy LazebnikDepartment of Mathematics, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel.
Marcelo FeighelsteinInformation Systems Department, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Sebastian MellerDepartment of Small Animal Medicine and Surgery, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Hannover, Germany.
Ilan ShimshoniInformation Systems Department, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Lauren FinkaCats Protection, National Cat Centre, Sussex, United Kingdom.
Stelio P L LunaSchool of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, São Paulo State University (Unesp), São Paulo, Brazil.
Daniel S MillsJoseph Bank Laboratories, School of Life Sciences, University of Lincoln, Lincoln, United Kingdom.
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.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Facial landmarks, widely studied in human affective computing, are beginning to gain interest in the animal domain. Specifically, landmark-based geometric morphometric methods have been used to objectively assess facial expressions in cats, focusing on pain recognition and the impact of breed-specific morphology on facial signaling. These methods employed a 48-landmark scheme grounded in cat facial anatomy. Manually annotating these landmarks, however, is a labor-intensive process, deeming it impractical for generating sufficiently large amounts of data for machine learning purposes and for use in applied real-time contexts with cats. Our previous work introduced an AI pipeline for automated landmark detection, which showed good performance in standard machine learning metrics. Nonetheless, the effectiveness of fully automated, end-to-end landmark-based systems for practical cat facial analysis tasks remained underexplored. In this paper we develop AI pipelines for three benchmark tasks using two previously collected datasets of cat faces. The tasks include automated cat breed recognition, cephalic type recognition and pain recognition. Our fully automated end-to-end pipelines reached accuracy of 75% and 66% in cephalic type and pain recognition respectively, suggesting that landmark-based approaches hold promise for automated pain assessment and morphological explorations.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecat behaviorcat morphologyfacial landmarkpain assessment

Identifiers

PMID39717789
PMCPMC11663861

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.