PRISMA ScR guideline

Foundational studies in niche fields may have low citations but be the only quantitative source for a specific parameter. - Unexpected or inconvenient results. Findings that contradict your priors should increase scrutiny, not trigger automatic exclusion. - Methodological weakness on one parameter. A paper that is weak on pain duration may still provide the best available data on cortisol response. Record what the paper **can** contribute. - Manufacturer sponsorship alone. These papers are capped at Evidence Class 3, not excluded. Tag INCLUDE with a note in the NOTES column. ## Output format For each paper, produce one row of a Markdown table with these columns: - **PAPER_ID** — leave blank, researcher assigns P-001, P-002, etc. - **TITLE** — full paper title - **FIRST_AUTHOR_YEAR** — e.g. "Ranheim 2005" - **JOURNAL** — journal name - **DOI** — if available in the abstract metadata - **AI_SCREEN** — INCLUDE / EXCLUDE / UNCERTAIN - **EXCLUSION_REASON** — if EXCLUDE, one of: wrong_species / no_quant_data / conf_abstract / not_peer_reviewed / retracted / out_of_scope. If UNCERTAIN, write the specific ambiguity. If INCLUDE, leave blank. - **EVIDENCE_TYPE** — RCT / observational / review / expert — your best guess from the abstract - **PARAMETER_TYPE** — duration / intensity / prevalence / efficacy (multiple allowed) - **SPECIES_AGE_GROUP** — e.g. "neonatal piglets", "dairy calves 4–6 weeks" - **NOTES** — cross-use flags, e.g. "Also contains tail docking data — cross-tag for future SHE_TDOCK module" ## After the screening table Produce a short summary: - **Total screened:** X - **INCLUDE:** Y - **EXCLUDE:** Z (broken down by exclusion reason) - **UNCERTAIN:** W ## Verification reminder End every output with this exact line: > ⚠ AI abstract

at segment should be ideally divided into additional phases. Conversely, if consecutive segments represent 8 essentially the same affective experience (i.e., similar intensity), they should ideally be merged. For example, pain resulting from an injury could be segmented into an initial tissue damage phase, an acute inflammatory phase, and a subsequent recovery or healing phase, ensuring each phase accurately captures periods of consistent subjective experience. ■​ Evidence Documentation: For each temporal segment, all evidence that can inform the likely intensity of the affective experience is reviewed and documented. Knowledge from multiple scientific disciplines can be considered, including behavioral indicators such as activity patterns, preferences and postural changes, neurological markers like patterns of brain activity, pharmacological evidence derived from responses to pain-relieving drugs, physiological measures including stress hormones and heart rate variability, and evolutionary considerations on the adaptive nature of responses. This is often the most labor-intensive step in the process, as it requires reviewing and synthesizing a large and diverse body of evidence to justify the probabilistic assignment of intensity levels for each segment of the affective experience; ■​ Representation Using Pain-Track/Pleasure-Track: The evidence reviewed is systematically translated into standardized visual notation systems: the Pain-Track for negative experiences and the Pleasure-Track for positive experiences. These notation systems clearly depict the intensity and duration of each affective experience across the temporal segments defined. Specifically, they illustrate different intensity categories (for example, Annoying, Hurtful, Disabling, and Excruciating,

ified and included (1) the lack of approved products validated for efficacy, (2) economic limitations and challenges, and (3) deficient guidelines and training for veterinarians to develop protocols. These barriers must be…

ified and included (1) the lack of approved products validated for efficacy, (2) economic limitations and challenges, and (3) deficient guidelines and training for veterinarians to develop protocols. These barriers must be…

…PRISMA based on evidence and quality of the sample size and Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. ​h​t​t​p…

…PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Consent for publication 7326/​M18-​0850. Not applicable. 17. Grosse…

…PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ Consent for publication 7326/​M18-​0850. Not applicable. 17. Grosse…

…PRISMA based on evidence and quality of the sample size and Extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467–73. ​h​t​t​p…

…explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS Biol. 18, e3000411 (2020). 75. Russell, W. & Burch, R. The principles of humane experimental technique. (1959). 76. Banks, R. E. The 4th…

s undertaken to address drug regulatory proof of efficacy require- ments to internationally harmonised (VICH), Good Clinical practice (GL9) guidelines [53]. Based on the data above, it was hypothesised that Tri-Solfen…