BovineTalk: machine learning for vocalization analysis of dairy cattle under the negative affective state of isolation.

There is a critical need to develop and validate non-invasive animal-based indicators of affective states in livestock species, in order to integrate them into on-farm assessment protocols, potentially via the use of precision livestock farming (PLF) tools. One such promising approach is the use of vocal indicators. The acoustic structure of vocalizations and their functions were extensively studied in important livestock species, such as pigs, horses, poultry, and goats, yet cattle remain understudied in this context to date. Cows were shown to produce two types of vocalizations: low-frequency calls (LF), produced with the mouth closed, or partially closed, for close distance contacts, and open mouth emitted high-frequency calls (HF), produced for long-distance communication, with the latter considered to be largely associated with negative affective states. Moreover, cattle vocalizations were shown to contain information on individuality across a wide range of contexts, both negative and positive. Nowadays, dairy cows are facing a series of negative challenges and stressors in a typical production cycle, making vocalizations during negative affective states of special interest for research. One contribution of this study is providing the largest to date pre-processed (clean from noises) dataset of lactating adult multiparous dairy cows during negative affective states induced by visual isolation challenges. Here, we present two computational frameworks-deep learning based and explainable machine learning based, to classify high and low-frequency cattle calls and individual cow voice recognition. Our models in these two frameworks reached 87.2 and 89.4% accuracy for LF and HF classification, with 68.9 and 72.5% accuracy rates for the cow individual identification, respectively.

BrachySound: machine learning based assessment of respiratory sounds in dogs.

The early and accurate diagnosis of brachycephalic obstructive airway syndrome (BOAS) in dogs is pivotal for effective treatment and enhanced canine well-being. Owners often do underestimate the severity of BOAS in their dogs. In addition, traditional diagnostic methods, which include pharyngolaryngeal auscultation, are often compromised by subjectivity, are time-intensive and depend on the veterinary surgeon's experience. Hence, new fast, reliable assessment methods for BOAS are required. The aim of the current study was to use machine learning techniques to bridge this scientific gap. In this study, machine learning models were employed to objectively analyze 366 audio samples from 69 Pugs and 79 other brachycephalic breeds, recorded with an electronic stethoscope during a 15-min standardized exercise test. In classifying the BOAS test results as to whether the dog is affected or not, our models achieved a peak accuracy of 0.85, using subsets from the Pugs dataset. For predictions of the BOAS results from recordings at rest in Pugs and various brachycephalic breeds, accuracies of 0.68 and 0.65 were observed, respectively. Notably, the detection of laryngeal sounds achieved an F1 score of 0.80. These results highlight the potential of machine learning models to significantly streamline the examination process, offering a more objective assessment than traditional methods. This research indicates a turning point towards a data-driven, objective, and efficient approach in canine health assessment, fostering standardized and objective BOAS diagnostics.

Masticatory Myofascial Pain Syndrome: Implications for Endodontists.

INTRODUCTION: Masticatory myofascial pain syndrome can present similarly to other dental conditions in odontogenetic structures. Endodontists should be familiar with the symptomology and pathophysiology of masticatory myofascial pain syndrome to avoid misdiagnosis, incorrect treatment, and medicolegal repercussions. The aim of this review was to provide a foundational summary for endodontists to identify and correctly manage masticatory myofascial pain syndrome. METHODS: A narrative review of the literature was performed through a MEDLINE search and a hand search of the major myofascial pain textbooks. RESULTS: Masticatory myofascial pain syndrome is a musculoligamentous syndrome that can present similarly to odontogenic pain or refer pain to the eyebrows, ears, temporomandibular joints, maxillary sinus, tongue, and hard palate. Currently, the most comprehensive pathophysiology theory describing masticatory myofascial pain syndrome is the expanded integrated hypothesis. The most widely accepted diagnostic guidelines for masticatory myofascial pain syndrome are the Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders; however, their diagnostic capability is limited. There is no hierarchy of treatment methods because each patient requires a tailored and multidisciplinary management aimed at regaining the muscle's range of motion, deactivating the myofascial trigger points, and maintaining pain relief. CONCLUSIONS: The pain patterns for masticatory myofascial pain syndrome are well-known; however, there is a lack of consensus on the most proper method of trigger point diagnosis or pain quantification. The diagnostic strategies for masticatory myofascial pain syndrome vary, and the diagnostic aids are not well developed.

A Scoping Review of Four Decades of Outcomes in Nonsurgical Root Canal Treatment, Nonsurgical Retreatment, and Apexification Studies: Part 3-A Proposed Framework for Standardized Data Collection and Reporting of Endodontic Outcome Studies.

INTRODUCTION: Despite initiatives to standardize and improve reporting of rapidly growing endodontic outcome research studies, issues related to missing and ambiguous information are still of great concern. In this article, we propose a framework for standardized data collection and a compiled checklist for reporting of various study designs on endodontic outcome. METHODS: A comprehensive search was carried out to locate randomized controlled trials, cohorts, case-control studies, or case series of >100 patients that reported on endodontic outcomes. We reviewed these articles to develop a Data Collection Template and compiled a checklist for reporting of future endodontic outcome research. RESULTS: Out of 354 eligible articles previously reported in our scoping review on endodontic outcome studies, 109 articles were selected and screened for study variables or levels of categorization. Our complied Data Collection Template was developed in 19 domains to highlight important demographic, preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables. Because of the specific needs for endodontic outcome literature, we also proposed a compiled checklist (consisting of 4 main domains) to facilitate the reporting of various study designs on endodontic outcome studies. This checklist included simple descriptions of the required items and examples on reporting from published endodontic studies. CONCLUSIONS: By facilitating the collection and reporting of relevant research data by investigators in private practice and academia, we hope that the proposed Data Collection Template and reporting guideline can highlight the importance of standardization among clinicians and researchers while producing valid scientific information that will support evidence-based treatment decisions.

A Scoping Review of 4 Decades of Outcomes in Nonsurgical Root Canal Treatment, Nonsurgical Retreatment, and Apexification Studies-Part 2: Outcome Measures.

INTRODUCTION: Inconsistencies in the definitions of endodontic outcome terminology jeopardize evaluations of proposed interventions and patient care quality. This scoping review aimed to provide groundwork to develop a set of basic outcomes in endodontics. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search for randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series (≥10 patients) published after 1980 with patients ≥10 years of age with any preoperative pulpal and periapical diagnosis in permanent teeth requiring nonsurgical root canal treatment, retreatment, or apexification. Abstracted data on outcome assessment methods, assessors, and domains were reported after univariate and bivariate analyses. RESULTS: Treatment outcomes were evaluated radiographically (88%) or clinically (73%). Although 2-dimensional radiography exceeded 3-dimensional radiography, the use of the latter has increased since 2010, mostly for nonsurgical retreatments. Of 19 identified outcomes, 5 were most frequent: success (168 studies, 40%), radiographic healing (128 studies, 30%), survival (of an asymptomatic tooth [48 studies, 12%] or of a procedure code in administrative databases [31 studies, 7%]), pain assessment (14 studies, 3%), and quality of life (11 studies, 3%). Clinician-centered outcomes have been most frequently studied since the 1980s (71%), in academic settings (76%), and using a prospective design (45%). Patient-centered outcomes were reported in 19% of studies before 2010 and 30% since 2010. They were more common among retrospective studies (49%). CONCLUSIONS: Patient-centered outcome measures are lacking in endodontic studies. The state of available research can provide a baseline for the development of a core outcome set in endodontics, which should represent the important patient-centered outcomes in conjunction with well-validated clinician-centered outcomes.

A Scoping Review of 4 Decades of Outcomes in Nonsurgical Root Canal Treatment, Nonsurgical Retreatment, and Apexification Studies-Part 1: Process and General Results.

INTRODUCTION: Despite initiatives to standardize reports, variances in study design, outcomes assessed, and tools used are persistent in the literature. This review scoped the existing literature on endodontic outcome studies for future development of core outcome sets. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search of randomized controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and case series (≥10 patients) published after 1980 including patients ≥10 years of age with any preoperative pulpal and periapical diagnosis in permanent teeth requiring nonsurgical root canal treatment (NS-RCT), retreatment (NS-ReTx), or apexification was performed. Abstracted data were reported through descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of the 9957 studies screened, 354 were included. An increase in the quantity of endodontic outcome publications and levels of evidence in their study design was noted over the past 4 decades. Although 41% of the studies included participants 26-50 years of age, literature including participants >50 years old has increased since 2000. Apexification and NS-ReTx were mostly provided by specialists and postgraduate students. The most common follow-up period was 2-5 years (35%), and most randomized controlled trials (58%) reported follow-up times <1 year. Multiple-visit treatment was most common in apexification studies (85%). Deficiency, inconsistency, and ambiguity were observed across many reports. CONCLUSIONS: NS-ReTx and NS-RCT/NS-ReTx studies have increased over the past 2 decades, particularly those focusing on molars and patients >50 years old. Despite the progress in endodontic research, heterogeneity in reporting styles yields considerable limitations, particularly data standardization challenges and inconsistencies in methods and results reporting. This scoping review highlighted the state of available research and supported the development of standardized guidelines for future investigations.