A Model Framework for the Estimation of Animal ‘Suffering’: Its Use in Predicting and Retrospectively Assessing the Impact of Experiments on Animals

Morton, David B.

doi:10.3390/ani13050800

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Evidence-based severity classification is upcoming and has been performed for different procedures and models, such as epilepsy [ 22 , 23 , 24 ], repeated anesthesia [ 25 , 26 ], depression [ 27 ] and models of gastrointestinal diseases [ 28 ]. Recently, a mathematical model to estimate the severity of animal procedures has been described by Morton [ 29 ]. These methods use objective parameters, scores and tests to assess the severity of animal procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Severity Classification of Laboratory Animal Procedures in Two Belgian Academic Institutions

Vleeschauwer

Lambaerts

Hernot

et al. 2023

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

According to the EU Directive 2010/63, all animal procedures must be classified as non-recovery, mild, moderate or severe. Several examples are included in the Directive to help in severity classification. Since the implementation of the Directive, different publications and guidelines have been disseminated on the topic. However, due to the large variety of disease models and animal procedures carried out in many different animal species, guidance on the severity classification of specific procedures or models is often lacking or not specific enough. The latter is especially the case in disease models where the level of pain, suffering, distress and lasting harm depends on the duration of the study (for progressive disease models) or the dosage given (for infectious or chemically induced disease models). This, in turn, may lead to inconsistencies in severity classification between countries, within countries and even within institutions. To overcome this, two Belgian academic institutions with a focus on biomedical research collaborated to develop a severity classification for all the procedures performed. This work started with listing all in-house procedures and assigning them to 16 (sub)categories. First, we determined which parameters, such as clinical signs, dosage or duration, were crucial for severity classification within a specific (sub)category. Next, a severity classification was assigned to the different procedures, which was based on professional judgment by the designated veterinarians, members of the animal welfare body (AWB) and institutional animal ethics committee (AEC), integrating the available literature and guidelines. During the classification process, the use of vague terminology, such as ‘minor impact’, was avoided as much as possible. Instead, well-defined cut-offs between severity levels were used. Furthermore, we sought to define common denominators to group procedures and to be able to classify new procedures more easily. Although the primary aim is to address prospective severity, this can also be used to assess actual severity. In summary, we developed a severity classification for all procedures performed in two academic, biomedical institutions. These include many procedures and disease models in a variety of animal species for which a severity classification was not reported so far, or the terms that assign them to a different severity were too vague.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Severity Classification of Laboratory Animal Procedures in Two Belgian Academic Institutions

Vleeschauwer

Lambaerts

Hernot

et al. 2023

Animals

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Also, the comparison of the severity experienced by an animal or an interventional cohort and the severity classification of that model given in the EU Directive would benefit to the animals´ welfare, since humane endpoints have to be applied once the severity is exceeded. Therefore, a new semiquantitative assessment has been developed by Morton [ 5 ]. Overall, the accurate ratings of degrees of severity need closer attention from the community and clearer parameters on which the rating decisions should be based.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Overall, the accurate ratings of degrees of severity need closer attention from the community and clearer parameters on which the rating decisions should be based. Furthermore, parameters, which are to be evaluated when rating the degrees of severity of animals, have to be known and clearly defined [ 5 ]. Regular teaching and training sessions are necessary and required to maintain good animal welfare, regardless of the background experience.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The classification of the procedures´ severity being inflicted on the animal as well as their reaction towards that stimuli are divided into: ´non-recovery´, ´mild´, ´moderate´, and ´severe´. Morton [ 5 ] recently suggested not only to classify a procedure´s severity before conducting the experiment, but to standardly evaluate throughout and after the experiment whether the severity classification had been appropriately chosen with regards to the severity actually seen in the animals during the conduction of the experiment.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Krueger,

Boecker,

Gauggel

et al. 2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Animal models in neuroscience with alternative approaches: Evolutionary, biomedical, and ethical perspectives

Neziri,

Köseoğlu,

Deniz Köseoğlu

et al. 2024

Anim Models and Exp Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal models have been a crucial tool in neuroscience research for decades, providing insights into the biomedical and evolutionary mechanisms of the nervous system, disease, and behavior. However, their use has raised concerns on several ethical, clinical, and scientific considerations. The welfare of animals and the 3R principles (replacement, reduction, refinement) are the focus of the ethical concerns, targeting the importance of reducing the stress and suffering of these models. Several laws and guidelines are applied and developed to protect animal rights during experimenting. Concurrently, in the clinic and biomedical fields, discussions on the relevance of animal model findings on human organisms have increased. Latest data suggest that in a considerable amount of time the animal model results are not translatable in humans, costing time and money. Alternative methods, such as in vitro (cell culture, microscopy, organoids, and micro physiological systems) techniques and in silico (computational) modeling, have emerged as potential replacements for animal models, providing more accurate data in a minimized cost. By adopting alternative methods and promoting ethical considerations in research practices, we can achieve the 3R goals while upholding our responsibility to both humans and other animals. Our goal is to present a thorough review of animal models used in neuroscience from the biomedical, evolutionary, and ethical perspectives. The novelty of this research lies in integrating diverse points of views to provide an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of animal models in neuroscience and in discussing potential alternative methods.

show abstract

A Model Framework for the Estimation of Animal ‘Suffering’: Its Use in Predicting and Retrospectively Assessing the Impact of Experiments on Animals

Cited by 5 publications

References 15 publications

Severity Classification of Laboratory Animal Procedures in Two Belgian Academic Institutions

Severity Classification of Laboratory Animal Procedures in Two Belgian Academic Institutions

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

Animal models in neuroscience with alternative approaches: Evolutionary, biomedical, and ethical perspectives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About