MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2563711602 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2016.00111

Eye and Ear Temperature Using Infrared Thermography Are Related to Rectal Temperature in Dogs at Rest or With Exercise

2016· article· en· W2563711602 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Brian M. Zanghi

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRectal temperatureBreedThermoregulationAnimal scienceThermographyHyperthermiaMedicineLinear regressionBiologyInternal medicineMathematicsInfraredStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rectal body temperature (BT) has been documented in exercising dogs to monitor thermoregulation, heat stress risk, and performance during physical activity. Eye (BTeye) and ear (BTear) temperature measured with infrared thermography (IRT) were compared to rectal (BTrec) temperature as the reference method and assess alternative sites to track hyperthermia, possibly to establish BTeye IRT as a passive and non-contact method. BT measures were recorded at 09:00, 11:30, 12:30, and 02:30 from Labrador Retrievers (N=16) and Beagles (N=16) while sedentary and with 30-min play-exercise (pre- and 0, 15, 30-min post-exercise). Total exercise locomotor activity counts were recorded to compare relative intensity of play-exercise between breeds. BTrec, BTeye, and BTear were measured within 5 min of the target time. Each BT method was analyzed by ANOVA for main effects of breed and time. Method differences were compared using Bland-Altman plots and linear regression. Sedentary BT differed by breed for BTrec (p<0.0001), BTear (p<0.0001), and BTeye (p=0.06) with Labs having on average 0.3-0.8oC higher BT compared to Beagles. Readings also declined over time for BTeye (p<0.0001) and BTear (p<0.0001), but not for BTrec (p=0.63) for both breeds. Total exercise (30-min) activity counts did not differ (p=0.53) between breeds. Time and breed interaction was significant in response to exercise for both BTrec and BTear (p=0.035 and p=0.005, respectively), with a marginal interaction (p=0.09) for BTeye. All 3 methods detected hyperthermia with Labs having a higher increase compared to Beagles. Both BTear and BTeye were significantly (p<0.0001) related to BTrec in all dogs with sedentary or exercise activity. The relationship between BTeye and BTrec improved when monitoring exercise hyperthermia (r=0.674) versus measures at rest (r=0.381), whereas BTear was significantly related to BTrec regardless of activity (r=0.615-0.735). Although BT readings were significantly related, method bias (p<0.02) was observed for BTeye to slightly underestimate BTrec, whereas no bias was observed between BTear and BTrec. This study demonstrates that IRT technology effectively measures both ear and eye temperature and enables effective monitoring of BT changes at rest, with exercise, and between breeds. However, ear, and not eye, temperature is a better reflection of rectal temperature.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.288 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations62
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207