MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410398185 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2025.1528357

A scale to measure perceived respiratory effort in dogs: the DeChant scale

2025· article· en· W4410398185 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mallory T. DeChant, Alexandra Moesta, Nathaniel J. Hall

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRoyal Canin
KeywordsScale (ratio)Measure (data warehouse)MedicinePsychologyComputer scienceGeographyData miningCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The perceived respiratory effort (PRE) scale is a categorical psychophysical scale originally developed by Gunnar Borg and modified for numerous applications. We here propose a modification of the PRE scale with a 0–10 categorical scale for dogs, called the DeChant scale. A total of seventy-nine Labrador Retrievers were scored by video using the developed scale pre and post one of two different sprint exercise paradigms. The first exercise paradigm was 200 m in length and the second exercise paradigm was 1,200 m in length. PRE was reliably scored with an interclass correlation exceeding 0.8 for both exercise paradigms. The scale was further validated with moderate (r > 0.5) to strong correlations (r > 0.7) with core body temperature, rectal temperature, heart rate and respiration rate. The results suggest this PRE scale may be a useful, rapid and reliable visual measure of canine effort under exercise. Future research is needed for validation to other dog breeds and for use as a measure to predict detection performance or heat injury risk.

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)0.006
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 score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.314 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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