Measure and characterization of lameness in gestating sows using force plate, kinematic, and accelerometer methods1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective was to assess sows' lameness by measuring weight distribution on limbs using a force plate made up of 4 individual platforms each resting on 4 single-ended beam load cells. The weight was recorded at an average rate of 14 readings per s over a 15 min period. Ten sows (5 lame sows and 5 sound sows) were weighed twice on 2 different days to assess the repeatability of the measure. Sixty-one sows were then selected in 2 different sites and visually scored for lameness, using a 3-point scoring system (0=normal gait; 1=abnormal gait, and/or stiffness; and 2=shortened stride, and/or the sow puts less weight or avoids putting weight on 1 leg). Various measures were recorded from each sow using the force plate (percentage of weight, the ratio between the weights applied by contralateral legs, weight shifting, and amplitude of weight bearing and weight removing), kinematics (speed, stride length, swing time, stance time, foot height, and carpal and tarsal joints angle average and amplitude), and accelerometers (time spent standing during 24 h, frequency of stepping behavior during feeding, and latency to lie down after feed delivery). The within-sow CV for each measure taken from the force plate were lower than 15%, which reflects a good repeatability. Among force plate measures, only the weight shifting frequency and the ratio between the weights applied by contralateral legs differed between lameness scores. Sows that scored 2 had a higher frequency of weight shifting for fore legs (P=0.0003) and hind legs (P=0.0007) than sows scored 0 and 1. The ratio between the weights applied by contralateral legs decreased with the increase of lameness score for the hind limbs (P=0.014). However, these measures also differed between sites (P<0.01). These differences may be due to various reasons, including but not limited to genetics and housing systems. Nevertheless, the results suggest that force plate measures such as the asymmetry in the weight applied between a pair of legs and weight shifting are good indicators of lameness. Multivariate analysis on fore and hind legs showed independency between variables related to animals in movement (measures from kinematics) and variables related to static animals (measures from the force plate and accelerometers). Therefore, both static and dynamic methods need to be used to detect various lame sows.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".