Development of PainFace software to simplify, standardize, and scale up mouse grimace analyses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Facial grimacing is used to quantify spontaneous pain in mice and other mammals, but scoring relies on humans with different levels of proficiency. Here, we developed a cloud-based software platform called PainFace (http://painface.net) that uses machine learning to detect 4 facial action units of the mouse grimace scale (orbitals, nose, ears, whiskers) and score facial grimaces of black-coated C57BL/6 male and female mice on a 0 to 8 scale. Platform accuracy was validated in 2 different laboratories, with 3 conditions that evoke grimacing-laparotomy surgery, bilateral hindpaw injection of carrageenan, and intraplantar injection of formalin. PainFace can generate up to 1 grimace score per second from a standard 30 frames/s video, making it possible to quantify facial grimacing over time, and operates at a speed that scales with computing power. By analyzing the frequency distribution of grimace scores, we found that mice spent 7x more time in a "high grimace" state following laparotomy surgery relative to sham surgery controls. Our study shows that PainFace reproducibly quantifies facial grimaces indicative of nonevoked spontaneous pain and enables laboratories to standardize and scale-up facial grimace analyses.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".