Herd- and Cow-Level Prevalence of Foot Lesions in Ontario Dairy Cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objectives of this cross-sectional study were to determine herd-level and cow-level prevalence estimates for 11 foot lesions in Ontario dairy cattle. Foot lesions were recorded by 5 hoof trimmers on 13,530 cows in 204 Ontario dairy herds from March 2004 to May 2005. Significant differences existed between free-stall and tie-stall housing. In free-stall housing systems, 46.4% of cows had a foot lesion, compared with 25.7% of cows in tie-stall barns. Digital dermatitis was the most common lesion in tie stalls, occurring in 9.3% of cows and 69.7% of the herds, whereas in free-stall herds, 22.7% of cows and 96.7% of the herds were affected. The most common hoof horn lesions were hemorrhages and ulcers, at 7.7 and 4.7% in tie-stall housing and 11.0 and 9.2% in free-stall housing, respectively. Foot blocks were used to treat 2.2% of cows in free stalls and 0.3% in tie stalls. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 9.5 to 17.3 for hoof horn lesions and 28.0 to 38.7 for infectious lesions. In summary, foot lesions diagnosed at the time of hoof trimming are common in Ontario, and appropriate treatment for hoof horn lesions is low.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".