ArticleLab animal2026
Enhanced health evaluation in mice using continuous home-cage monitoring and machine learning: a multicentric study.
Article in Lab animal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ensuring the health of laboratory rodents is critical for ethical research and maintaining scientific integrity. Traditional daily visual observations by trained technicians, conducted during the rodents' sleep period, often fail to detect subtle but critical health indicators due to the short duration of inspections and obstructions from enrichment materials. Here we aimed to improve health checks in mice by utilizing continuous home-cage monitoring coupled with machine learning (ML) algorithms. We hypothesized that reduced locomotion in mice would indicate distress or sickness, and that continuous tracking would identify clinical cases earlier than visual checks. We retrospectively analyzed locomotion data from three institutions using the same sensor technology and applied ML/artificial intelligence (AI) models to generate digital alerts for potential clinical cases. These alerts were then compared with clinical records to verify the accuracy of the predictions. Our results demonstrated that the ML algorithm identified animals in distress -3 to -6 days before verifiable clinical signs or death were noticed, with an accuracy of 66-80% on day -3 and 80-91% on day -6. This indicates that continuous monitoring of animal locomotion is a superior predictor of animal health compared with human observation. The findings suggest that augmenting visual checks with AI modeling can greatly improve animal welfare by identifying subclinical cases, enhancing study endpoints, increasing the rigor and reproducibility of research, and improving operational efficiency. Our work underscores the potential of integrating advanced monitoring systems and AI in laboratory animal facilities, marking a substantial step forward in the field of animal welfare and research methodology.
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.