ArticleBrain disorders (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2022
The Deepsqueak analysis system is as accurate, yet more efficient, than the Avisoft system across C57BL/6, FVB.129, and FVB mice.
Article in Brain disorders (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Behavioral assessment of pain in rodents: advances from evoked responses to spontaneous states and multimodal approaches.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Vocalisations as a potential indicator of parturition in C57BL/6J mice.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Mouse communicative behaviors are referred to as ultrasonic vocalizations (USVs). USVs are relevant to human health and are commonly recorded with the Avisoft-SASLab Pro recording system and the DeepSqueak system however, no study has compared DeepSqueak's accuracy to Avisoft-SASLab Pro's so it is unclear which is the optimal program. We used male and female C57BL/6, FVB.129, and FVB mice and assessed the total USVs detected, USV duration, fundamental frequency, and within system consistency for each system. We found that for all strains assessed, there were extremely high correlations for the quantity of vocalizations that were detected between Avisoft-SASLab Pro and DeepSqueak. Furthermore, no significant differences in USV detection between systems were found for any of the strains. A partial correlation was run to control for the strain, sex, and age covariates and found that no covariate substantially influenced the relationship between the USVs detected in Avisoft-SASLab Pro and those detected in DeepSqueak. We also investigated the duration and fundamental frequency of vocalizations between systems and found medium to large correlations across all strains and several significant differences. We next found that DeepSqueak has higher internal consistency than Avisoft-SASLab Pro when assessing USV duration and fundamental frequency. Lastly, we assessed the average time taken to analyze a file and found DeepSqueak to be the faster system. Altogether, these findings demonstrate that while both DeepSqueak and Avisoft-SASLab Pro are accurate and reliable, DeepSqueak is a more efficient USV analysis program.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.