RESUMO
Given the growing number of events involving exotic animals, it is crucial to prioritize the well-being of the animals involved. This study aims to evaluate the quality of animal presentation at a selected fair in Poland and assess the level of animal welfare evident in the exhibition boxes, contributing to the ongoing dialogue on this important issue. The evaluators used a five-point Likert scale and a Yes/No system to analyze the living conditions during the fair, including the size of containers, presence of substrate, and environmental enrichment. They also assessed the occurrence of visual abnormal postures and behaviors to gauge the overall level of welfare. To ensure the reliability and consistency of the data and minimize potential bias, each evaluator repeated the rating process three times, with a three-week interval between each session. An average value was then calculated for each aspect. A total of 818 animals were present at the fair, with 688 being reptiles (84.11%) and 130 being amphibians (15.89%). This study revealed that the provision of substrate scored higher for reptiles compared to amphibians, while the size of containers for amphibians received higher ratings than those for reptiles. Visual abnormalities in posture and behavior were more common in reptiles than in amphibians. Display containers for snakes received the lowest ratings and showed more visual abnormalities in posture and behavior, raising concerns about their welfare. Despite the presence of environmental enrichment, the overall level of animal welfare was assessed as being medium/low. Pearson's correlation coefficient indicated good reliability among the evaluators during the assessment process, with most assessments showing values > 0.8. Despite existing regulations for exhibitors, neglect remains prevalent. These findings highlight the potential negative impact of animal exposure at fairs on animal welfare. Display containers were often inadequately sized for the animals, particularly for snakes, chameleons, monitor lizards, and salamanders.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To assess the potential influence of replacing Milan criteria with simple risk scores on outcomes of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients undergoing liver transplantation. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Several risk scores combining morphological and biological features were recently proposed for precise selection of HCC patients for transplantation. METHODS: This retrospective study included 282 HCC liver transplant recipients. Recurrence-free survival (RFS), the primary outcome measure, was evaluated according to Metroticket 2.0 model and French AFP model with Milan criteria serving as benchmark. RESULTS: Patients were well stratified with respect to RFS by Milan criteria, Metroticket 2.0 criteria, and AFP model cut-off ≤2 points (all P < 0.001) with c-statistics of 0.680, 0.695, and 0.681, respectively. Neither Metroticket 2.0 criteria (0.014, Z = 0.023; P = 0.509) nor AFP model (-0.014, Zâ=â-0.021; P = 0.492) provided significant net reclassification improvement. Both patients within the Metroticket 2.0 criteria and AFP model ≤2 points exhibited heterogeneous recurrence risk, dependent upon alpha-fetoprotein (P = 0.026) and tumor number (P = 0.024), respectively. RFS of patients beyond Milan but within Metroticket 2.0 criteria (75.3%) or with AFP model ≤2 points (74.1%) was inferior to that observed for patients within Milan criteria (87.1%; P = 0.067 and P = 0.045, respectively). Corresponding microvascular invasion rates were 37.2% and 50.0%, compared with 13.6% in patients within Milan criteria (both P < 0.001). Moreover, Milan-out status was associated with significantly higher recurrence risk in subgroups within Metroticket 2.0 criteria (P = 0.021) or AFP model ≤2 points (P = 0.014). CONCLUSION: Utilization of simple risk scores for liver transplant eligibility assessment leads to selection of patients at higher risk of posttransplant HCC recurrence.
