IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0287965.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using photographs for rating severity degrees of clinical appearance in research mice enables valid discrimination of extreme but not mild and moderate conditions: A pilot study

Author

Listed:
  • Johanne C Krueger
  • Maren Boecker
  • Siegfried Gauggel
  • Andre Bleich
  • Rene H Tolba

Abstract

To ensure good animal welfare in laboratory research and in stockbreeding severity ratings of the animals´ wellbeing are essential. The current study investigated how valid raters can evaluate different severity degrees of clinical appearance and how ratings might be influenced by factors other than the severity itself. Ninety-seven people rated the severity degree (none, mild, moderate, or severe) of the clinical appearance of mice seen in eight different images. The images also differed in the perspective in which they had been taken (entire mouse or head only). The raters differed with regard to their experience of working with laboratory animals and were subsequently divided into three groups—beginners, advanced, professionals. Generalisability theory was applied to examine the contribution of the different rater (raters themselves and experience) and image facets (actual degree of severity and perspective) to the overall data variability. The images showing the extreme severity degrees were rated more homogenously and more precisely than were the images showing the intermediate degrees, as compared to the reference scores. The largest source of variance was the actual degree of severity, accounting for 56.6% of the total variance. Considering only the images showing the extreme severity degrees, this percentage rose to 91.6%, accounting almost exclusively for the found variance. In considering only the intermediate severity degrees, the actual degree of severity did not contribute to variance at all. The remaining variance was due to the raters and the interactions between raters, the actual degree of severity and the perspective. The experience of the raters did not account for any variance. Training in the assessment of severity degrees seems necessary to enhance detection of the intermediate degrees of severity, especially when images are used. In addition, good training material should be developed and evaluated to optimise teaching and to minimise wrong assessments.

Suggested Citation

  • Johanne C Krueger & Maren Boecker & Siegfried Gauggel & Andre Bleich & Rene H Tolba, 2023. "Using photographs for rating severity degrees of clinical appearance in research mice enables valid discrimination of extreme but not mild and moderate conditions: A pilot study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(11), pages 1-14, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0287965
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287965
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287965
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0287965&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0287965?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:plo:pone00:0136000 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0287965. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.