Supplemental data for: Characterising and describing the literature on the impacts of umbilical care on health outcomes and risk factors examined for umbilical health in intensively raised bovines: A scoping review.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Research abstract:The objective of this scoping review was to describe and characterize the existing literature regarding umbilical health and identify current gaps in knowledge. Six databases were searched for relevant primary research. Eligible studies must have examined umbilical health in an intensively raised bovine population. There were 4,250 articles that fit within the search terms and had their title and abstracts screened by two independent reviewers for potential relevance. From these, 724 full text articles were then screened, with 150 articles meeting the review criteria for data extraction. Seventeen were classified as descriptive, 24 were clinical trials, and 109 were analytical observational studies. Umbilical outcomes evaluated in descriptive studies were omphalitis (n = 11), parasitic infections of the umbilicus (n = 5), and umbilical hernias (n = 2). Only one clinical trial (n = 1) examined treatment of navel infections, whereas the remainder evaluated management factors that could be used to prevent a navel health outcome (n = 23), which included umbilical infections (n = 17), navel myasis (n = 3), navel measurements (n = 5), umbilical hernias (n = 1), and umbilical edema (n = 1). Analytical observational studies included studies examining risk factors for umbilical health (n = 60) and studies examining umbilical health itself as a risk factor (n = 60). Studies examining risk factors for umbilical health classified their outcomes as umbilical infections (n= 28), 11 of which were undefined and one which defined as diagnosed by a veterinarian. Umbilical hernias (n=8), two of which were only defined as diagnosed by a veterinarian and one which diagnosed by the herd manager. The remaining umbilical outcomes included scoring the navel sheath/flap size (n = 16), navel myasis (n = 2), and measurements of the umbilicus (n = 6). Studies examining umbilical health as a risk factor defined the umbilical risk factors as umbilical infection (n=39) of which 13 were undefined, umbilical hernias (n=8) of which 4 were undefined (several articles examined both umbilical infections and hernias), navel dipping (n = 12), navel/sheath scores as part of conformation classification for breeding (n = 2), navel measurements (n = 3), and umbilical cord drying times (n = 2). This review highlights the areas in need of future umbilical health research such as clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of different treatments of umbilical infection. It also emphasizes the importance of future studies to clearly define umbilical health outcomes of interest.Data description:This supplementary document presents data aimed at describing and characterizing the existing literature regarding umbilical health in bovines. Literature was gathered using a pre-defined search strategy from 6 databases and underwent screening of title and abstracts followed by full texts. A total of 150 articles met the search criteria and were included in this review, of these, 17 were classified as descriptive studies, 24 were clinical trials, and 109 were analytical observational studies.
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 | 0,006 | 0,075 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,024 | 0,031 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,642 | 0,064 |
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 ».