Utility and reliability of various on-farm welfare and health indicators for preweaning dairy calves
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The first objective of this study was to quantify the utility of welfare and health indicators for preweaning dairy calves based on the opinion of bovine veterinarians.The second objective was to assess these indicators' inter-rater and intra-rater reliability.A total of 37 veterinarians interested in the health and welfare of preweaning calves were initially identified in a previous study.An email invitation to participate in the utility assessment through an online questionnaire was sent, and 24 of them agreed to participate.Thirty-two dairy calf welfare indicators were evaluated, with each indicator assigned a utility value on a visual analog scale from 0 (no utility) to 10 (high utility).Indicators were categorized into low (≤3.4), average (3.5-6.9), or high (≥7.0)utility based on their median values.Each indicator utility's interquartile range (IQR) was stratified into 3 categories (low, average, and high) based on percentiles.In the second phase, 4 trained observers (3 veterinarians, including 2 PhD students in clinical science and 1 postdoctoral veterinarian working on calf welfare, and 1 veterinary student) were selected to assess reliability.The student was replaced by a professor (veterinarian) with expertise in calf health for the reliability assessment using pictures and videos, due to the student's involvement in selecting the material.Twenty-six indicators were included in the inter-rater reliability assessment and 21 in the intra-rater reliability assessment.Reliability was evaluated using both onfarm and online approaches.In the on-farm approach, 40 calves were assessed by the trained observers 3 times on the same day, whereas the online approach involved rating indicators based on pictures and videos of calves and their living environment.The intraclass correlation coef-ficient was used to assess reliability for quantitative indicators, with benchmarks of <0.5 (poor), 0.5-0.75(moderate), 0.75-0.9(good), and >0.9 (excellent).For qualitative indicators, Gwet's agreement coefficients AC 1 /AC 2 were employed, with benchmarks of <0.2 (poor), 0.21 to 0.40 (fair), 0.41 to 0.60 (moderate), 0.61 to 0.80 (good), and 0.81 to 1.00 (very good).The majority (30/32) of the indicators had a high median utility (≥7.0).The highest median utilities were observed for rectal temperature (10/10), dehydration (10/10), body condition (lean calf), and lesions (9.5/10).Indicators with high median utility and low IQR included rectal temperature (10/10, IQR = 1), dehydration (10/10, IQR = 1), navel discharge (9/10, IQR = 1.25), bedding wetness (calf area, 8/10, IQR = 1.25), bedding cleanliness in the calf area (8/10, IQR = 1.25), calf hygiene score (rear, 7.5/10, IQR = 1.25), wall cleanliness (calf area, 7/10, IQR = 1), and calf hygiene score (belly, 7/10, IQR = 1.25).The indicators classified with average utility and high IQR were those with the lowest median utility (i.e., umbilical hernia [6.5/10, IQR = 3] and avoidance [5/10, IQR = 2.5]).Most of the selected welfare and health indicators had good inter-and intra-rater agreements.Five indicators had moderate inter-rater reliability: hip height, length from the withers to the lumbosacral junction, swollen navel, avoidance, and dehydration (skin tent test), and only hip height had a moderate intra-rater agreement.No indicator had poor or fair agreement for the reliability assessment.This study highlights indicators with high utility but also emphasizes the importance of considering utility variability when assessing welfare at the herd level.Indicators with high reliability were identified, and for those with moderate reliability, better rater training, adjustments to the categories, or using other indicators are encouraged to improve reliability.It also represents an essential step for implementing these indicators in assessing calf welfare across multiple farms.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,016 | 0,034 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».