MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017194914 · doi:10.7717/peerj.8967

Clinical applicability of the Feline Grimace Scale: real-time versus image scoring and the influence of sedation and surgery

2020· article· en· W3017194914 on OpenAlexaff
Marina C. Evangelista, Javier Benito, Beatriz P. Monteiro, Ryota Watanabe, Graeme M. Doodnaught, Daniel Pang, Paulo V. Steagall

Bibliographic record

VenuePeerJ · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicVeterinary Pharmacology and Anesthesia
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedationMedicineAcepromazineAnesthesiaCATSIsofluranePain assessmentPropofolPain scaleSurgeryPain managementInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background The Feline Grimace Scale (FGS) is a facial expression-based scoring system for acute pain assessment in cats with reported validity using image assessment. The aims of this study were to investigate the clinical applicability of the FGS in real-time when compared with image assessment, and to evaluate the influence of sedation and surgery on FGS scores in cats. Methods Sixty-five female cats (age: 1.37 ± 0.9 years and body weight: 2.85 ± 0.76 kg) were included in a prospective, randomized, clinical trial. Cats were sedated with intramuscular acepromazine and buprenorphine. Following induction with propofol, anesthesia was maintained with isoflurane and cats underwent ovariohysterectomy (OVH). Pain was evaluated at baseline, 15 min after sedation, and at 0.5, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12 and 24 h after extubation using the FGS in real-time (FGS-RT). Cats were video-recorded simultaneously at baseline, 15 min after sedation, and at 2, 6, 12, and 24 h after extubation for subsequent image assessment (FGS-IMG), which was performed six months later by the same observer. The agreement between FGS-RT and FGS-IMG scores was calculated using the Bland & Altman method for repeated measures. The effects of sedation (baseline versus 15 min) and OVH (baseline versus 24 h) were assessed using linear mixed models. Responsiveness to the administration of rescue analgesia (FGS scores before versus one hour after) was assessed using paired t -tests. Results Minimal bias (−0.057) and narrow limits of agreement (−0.351 to 0.237) were observed between the FGS-IMG and FGS-RT. Scores at baseline (FGS-RT: 0.16 ± 0.13 and FGS-IMG: 0.14 ± 0.13) were not different after sedation (FGS-RT: 0.2 ± 0.15, p = 0.39 and FGS-IMG: 0.16 ± 0.15, p = 0.99) nor at 24 h after extubation (FGS-RT: 0.16 ± 0.12, p = 0.99 and FGS-IMG: 0.12 ± 0.12, p = 0.96). Thirteen cats required rescue analgesia; their FGS scores were lower one hour after analgesic administration (FGS-RT: 0.21 ± 0.18 and FGS-IMG: 0.18 ± 0.17) than before (FGS-RT: 0.47 ± 0.24, p = 0.0005 and FGS-IMG: 0.45 ± 0.19, p = 0.015). Conclusions Real-time assessment slightly overestimates image scoring; however, with minimal clinical impact. Sedation with acepromazine-buprenorphine and ovariohysterectomy using a balanced anesthetic protocol did not influence the FGS scores. Responsiveness to analgesic administration was observed with both the FGS-RT and FGS-IMG.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Citations64
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePeerJSame topicVeterinary Pharmacology and AnesthesiaFrench-language works237,207