ArticlePloS one2025
Application of video surveillance in preclinical safety studies in canines: Understanding the interobserver reliability and validity to recognize clinical behavior.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Appearance-based computer vision pipeline for multi-animal monitoring of canine activity, behavior and clinical observations.Frontiers in toxicology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preclinical in vivo studies are critical to identify potential adverse effects of drugs under development. However, a significant number of drug candidates are terminated during human clinical trials due to unexpected adverse events which were not predicted or detected in preclinical studies. Video surveillance can be a valuable tool to reduce the risk of missing and/or misclassifying adverse clinical observations (COs) in animals. To explore the applicability of detecting COs on video, the agreement between observers (reliability) and agreement between observers and experts (construct validity) of 13 important COs was evaluated. The reliability was investigated by evaluating the interobserver agreement between 23 observers with different experience levels and primary roles on defined COs and normal behavior, recorded on video during preclinical studies in canines. The validity was investigated by comparing the observers' assessments to the ground truth confirmed by three experts. This investigation showed a substantial reliability and validity of the observers' assessments without significant differences between experience levels or primary roles. Normal behavior was challenging to recognize (56% correct), while half of the COs appeared straightforward to identify with a validity of ≥ 90%: salivation, aggressiveness, circling, vomiting, head shaking and convulsions. Other COs were more challenging to detect with lowest scores for limb stiff/hypertonia, tremors and excitation. Regardless of experience-level, observers missed very few COs. This investigation showed the complexity when multiple COs occurred simultaneously, as well as the limitations of differentiating between visually similar COs (tremors vs. twitches; limping vs. limb stiff) on video without the possibility of in-person observation. Given the substantial overall reliability and validity, it is concluded that clinical canine behavior can be accurately detected on video by trained observers. This permits more objective and quantifiable monitoring of animal behavior and application of computer vision for future automatic monitoring of canine studies.
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.