{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015463917525773196, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003436426116838488, 'mean_word_length': 6.0606060606060606, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparison of noncontact infrared thermometry and 3 commercial subcutaneous temperature transponding microchips with rectal thermometry in rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta).

This study compared a noncontact infrared laser thermometer and 3 different brands of subcutaneous temperature transponding microchips with rectal thermometry in 50 rhesus macaques (Macaca mulatta). The data were analyzed by using intraclass correlation coefficients and limits of agreement. In addition, the technical capabilities and practicality of the thermometers in the clinical setting were reviewed. None of the alternative techniques investigated was equivalent to rectal thermometry in rhesus macaques. Temperatures obtained by using microchips had higher correlation and agreed more closely with rectal temperatures than did those obtained by the noncontact infrared method. However, transponding microchips did not yield consistent results. Due to difficulty in positioning nonsedated macaques in their homecage, subcutaneous microchips were not practical in the clinical setting. Furthermore, pair-housed macaques may be able to break or remove microchips from their cagemates.