Herd-level risk factors for seven different foot lesions in Ontario Holstein cattle housed in tie stalls or free stalls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Worldwide, there is considerable between-herd variation within individual foot lesion prevalence studies. This variation suggests that herd-level risk factors are important from a prevention perspective. The objective was to determine the effect of selected risk factors on the prevalence of 7 foot lesions in both tie-stall and free-stall housing systems. As part of a cross-sectional foot lesion study 5 hoof trimmers recorded lesions for all cows that were foot trimmed in a herd. In addition, they completed a risk factor questionnaire for each herd. The impact of specific risk factors was evaluated using separate multi-variable models for both free-stall and tie-stall herds. The lesions evaluated were digital dermatitis, sole ulcer, sole hemorrhage, heel horn erosion, white line separations, white line abscess, and interdigital fibroma. Model types were selected based on herd-level lesion distribution. Detrimental risk factors identified in free-stall housing included increased alley scraping frequency (2.2- to 2.4-fold for sole ulcers) and trimming in summer or fall (-0.2-fold vs. spring and winter for digital dermatitis). Protective risk factors in free stalls included intermediate bedding depth (0.4-fold for 2.5 to 7.5 cm vs. more or less bedding for interdigital fibroma) and trimming heifers before calving (0.1-fold for white line abscess). In tie-stall herds no protective risk factors were identified. Detrimental risk factors for lesions in tie stalls included year-round access to outside areas (2.1-fold increase in digital dermatitis, 3.5-fold for white line separation, and 7.0-fold for interdigital fibroma vs. no or only seasonal exercise access), routine spraying of feet (2.0-fold increase in digital dermatitis), larger herds (3.0-fold increase in interdigital fibroma vs. <41 cow herds), and the use of wood bedding material (6.5-fold vs. straw bedding for interdigital fibroma). The risk factors identified need further evaluation to determine the temporal relationships, as well as whether the relationships with foot lesions are causal.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".