ArticleLab animal2026
GrimACE: automated, multimodal cage-side assessment of pain and well-being in mice.
Article in Lab animal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial intelligence-based automated scoring of the mouse grimace scale: a systematic review.Pain reports · 2026Review
- GrimACE: automated, multimodal cage-side assessment of pain and well-being in mice.Lab animal · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pain and welfare monitoring is essential for ethical animal testing, but current cage-side assessments are qualitative and subjective. Here we present the GrimACE, a fully standardized and automated cage-side monitoring tool for mice, the most widely used animals in research. The GrimACE uses computer vision to provide automated mouse grimace scale (MGS) assessment together with pose estimation in a safe, dark environment. We validated the system by analyzing pain after brain surgeries (craniotomies) with head implants under two analgesia regimes. Human-expert and automated MGS scores showed very high correlation (Pearson's r = 0.87). Both expert and automated scores revealed that a moderate increase in pain can be detected for up to 48 h after surgeries, but that both a single dose of meloxicam (5 mg/kg subcutaneuously) or three doses of buprenorphine (0.1 mg/kg) + meloxicam (5 mg/kg subcutaneuously) provide adequate and comparable pain management. Simultaneous pose estimation demonstrated that mice receiving buprenorphine + meloxicam showed increased movement 4 h after surgery, indicative of hyperactivity, a well-known side effect of opioid treatment. Significant weight loss was also detected in the buprenorphine + meloxicam treatment group compared with the meloxicam-only group. In addition, detailed BehaviorFlow analysis and automated MGS scoring of control animals suggests that habituation to GrimACE is unnecessary, and that measurements can be repeated multiple times, ensuring standardized postoperative recovery monitoring.
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.