MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2966250919 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0220751

Low-cost solution for rodent home-cage behaviour monitoring

2019· article· en· W2966250919 on OpenAlexafffund
Surjeet Singh, Edgar Bermudez-Contreras, Mojtaba Nazari, Robert J. Sutherland, Majid H. Mohajerani

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlzheimer Society
KeywordsFlexibility (engineering)Computer scienceRodentCageCircadian rhythmReal-time computingSimulationNeuroscienceBiologyEngineeringEcologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the current research on measuring complex behaviours/phenotyping in rodents, most of the experimental design requires the experimenter to remove the animal from its home-cage environment and place it in an unfamiliar apparatus (novel environment). This interaction may influence behaviour, general well-being, and the metabolism of the animal, affecting the phenotypic outcome even if the data collection method is automated. Most of the commercially available solutions for home-cage monitoring are expensive and usually lack the flexibility to be incorporated with existing home-cages. Here we present a low-cost solution for monitoring home-cage behaviour of rodents that can be easily incorporated to practically any available rodent home-cage. To demonstrate the use of our system, we reliably predict the sleep/wake state of mice in their home-cage using only video. We validate these results using hippocampal local field potential (LFP) and electromyography (EMG) data. Our approach provides a low-cost flexible methodology for high-throughput studies of sleep, circadian rhythm and rodent behaviour with minimal experimenter interference.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.008

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.181 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations87
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONESame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207