MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402542026 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.198

484 Exploring fear in client-owned dogs: Insights from behavioral testing, owner surveys, and biomarker validation

2024· article· en· W4402542026 on OpenAlexaffabout
Rachel Strassburger, Scarlett Burron, Kiara Gagliardi, Taylor Lantz, Alexandra Harlander, Anna K. Shoveller

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomarkerPsychologyClinical psychologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Since the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, pet professionals and owners have observed an increase in anxiety-related behaviors, including fearfulness, contributing to behavioral problems, reduction in pet and owner welfare, and increased rates of shelter relinquishment. The objectives of this study were to evaluate canine demographics and owner-identified fearfulness compared with fear-related behaviors during in-person behavior tests, with further verification using fear-related biomarkers. Client-owned dogs [n = 102; 25.3 ± 11.6 kg body weight (BW)] were included between 1 to 10 yr of age, of varying breeds, sex and neuter statuses, and home dynamics. Dogs had no known health issues, were not receiving medication, and were fed a standardized diet for 4 wk prior to testing. Owners provided information via a questionnaire regarding fear, anxiety, excitability, and separation behaviors, as well as information on the lifestyle and background of the dog. Behavior tests, which consisted of a novel human, novel object, and an open field test, were performed indoors in a constructed 3 x 3 m arena at the University of Guelph. Fecal samples were provided by owners and blood samples were collected immediately following the behavior assessment. Commercial ELISA kits were used to quantify fecal IgA, serum serotonin (5-HT), and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA), then the 5-HIAA:5-HT ratio was calculated. Behavior tests were recorded on a GoPro camera, and behaviors were coded using BORIS. For preliminary analysis, owner questionnaire data relating to human-directed fear was separated into frequency of human-directed fear (HFF), intensity of human-directed fear (HFI), frequency of fear-related behaviors during grooming or veterinary visits (VHF), and intensity of fear-related behaviors during grooming or veterinary visits (VHI) section. Regression analyses were conducted using SAS, with outcomes derived from behavioral tests serving as dependent variables, and predictor variables encompassing sex, neuter status, age, BW, biomarker concentrations, and owner survey scores. Significance was determined at P ≤ 0.05 and trends at P ≤ 0.10. Preliminary data analysis using data from the novel human test of 50 dogs indicates that the duration of reduced body posture during the test was positively correlated with VHF (P = 0.0201) and VHI (P = 0.0226) scores, and negatively correlated with HIAA concentrations (P = 0.0134). The duration of the “side” ear position was also positively associated with HFF (P = 0.0219), HFI (P = 0.0471), and VHI (P = 0.0170) scores, with a trend observed in VHF (P = 0.0818) scores. Duration of time with ears pinned back was similarly associated with HFF (P = 0.0064), HFI (P = 0.0076), and VHI (0.0192) scores. These results suggest that behavior may be reliably predicted from owner-completed surveys and can be a valuable tool in gathering information for both professionals and the public. Further data analysis from the present study will be conducted to further understand the relationship between canine demographics, owner identified fear scores, physiological biomarkers and behavior testing results.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.391
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207