Back

GrimACE: Automated, multimodal cage-side assessment of pain and well-being in mice

Sturman, O.; Schmutz, M.; Lorimer, T.; Zhang, R.; Privitera, M.; Roessler, F. K.; Leonardi, J. T.; Waag, R.; Marinescu, A.-M.; Bekemeier, C.; Hohlbaum, K.; Bohacek, J.

2025-03-10 neuroscience
10.1101/2025.03.07.642046 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Pain and welfare monitoring is essential for ethical animal testing, but current cage-side assessments are qualitative and subjective. Here we present the GrimACE, the first fully standardised and automated cage-side monitoring tool for mice, the most widely used animals in research. The GrimACE uses computer vision to provide automated mouse grimace scale (MGS) assessment together with pose estimation in a dark, safe environment. We validated the system by analysing pain after brain surgeries (craniotomies) with head implants under two analgesia regimes. Human-expert and automated MGS scores showed very high correlation (Pearson's r=0.87). Both expert and automated scores revealed that a moderate increase in pain can be detected for up to 48 hours after surgeries, but that both a single dose of meloxicam (5mg/kg s.c.) or 3 doses of buprenorphine (0.1mg/kg) + meloxicam (5mg/kg s.c.) provide adequate and comparable pain management. Simultaneous pose estimation demonstrated that mice receiving buprenorphine + meloxicam showed increased movement 4h after surgery, indicative of hyperactivity, a well-known side-effect of opioid treatment. Significant weight loss was also detected in the buprenorphine + meloxicam treatment group compared to the meloxicam-only group. Additionally, detailed BehaviorFlow analysis and automated MGS scoring of control animals suggests that habituation to the GrimACE system is unnecessary, and that measurements can be repeated multiple times, ensuring standardised post-operative recovery monitoring.

Published in Lab Animal (predicted rank #6) · training set

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.