The Role of Infrared Thermography as a Non-Invasive Tool for the Detection of Lameness in Cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of infrared thermography for the identification of lameness in cattle has increased in recent years largely because of its non-invasive properties, ease of automation and continued cost reductions. Thermography can be used to identify and determine thermal abnormalities in animals by characterizing an increase or decrease in the surface temperature of their skin. The variation in superficial thermal patterns resulting from changes in blood flow in particular can be used to detect inflammation or injury associated with conditions such as foot lesions. Thermography has been used not only as a diagnostic tool, but also to evaluate routine farm management. Since 2000, 14 peer reviewed papers which discuss the assessment of thermography to identify and manage lameness in cattle have been published. There was a large difference in thermography performance in these reported studies. However, thermography was demonstrated to have utility for the detection of contralateral temperature difference and maximum foot temperature on areas of interest. Also apparent in these publications was that a controlled environment is an important issue that should be considered before image scanning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".