Evaluation of a fracture pain model in domestic pigeons (Columba livia)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To validate a model of postfracture pain in perching birds. ANIMALS: 21 adult domestic pigeons (Columba livia). PROCEDURES: In each bird, a standardized osteotomy of 1 femur was performed and the fracture was immobilized with an intramedullary pin. Degree of postoperative pain was evaluated 6 times/d for 4 days by use of 3 methods: an electronic perch for assessment of weight-bearing load differential of the pelvic limbs, 4 numeric rating pain scales for assessment of pain (all of which involved the observer in the same room as the bird), and analysis of video-recorded (observer absent) partial ethograms for bird activity and posture. Measurements obtained were compared with data collected before the surgery to evaluate the ability of these methods to detect pain. RESULTS: The weight-bearing load differential was a sensitive, specific, reliable, and indirect measure of fracture-associated pain in the model used. Two of 4 tested pain scales (fractured limb position and subjective evaluation of degree of pain) were sensitive and specific for detecting pain and were reliable in a research setting. Interobserver reliability of the 4 pain scales was excellent. Partial ethograms were sensitive for identifying pain-associated behavior in pigeons, particularly during the first 2 days after surgery. CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The fracture pain model was reliable and reproducible and may be useful for experimental studies involving postsurgical pain in pigeons. Weight-bearing load differential was the most sensitive and specific means of determining degree of pain in pigeons during the first 4 days after hind limb fracture induction.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".