MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2556601863 · doi:10.2527/jam2016-1271

1271 Economic evaluation of a milk test for pregnancy confirmation in dairy cows

2016· article· en· W2556601863 on OpenAlexaff
Erin Wynands, Mike von Massow, S.J. LeBlanc, D.F. Kelton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPregnancyMedicinePalpationHerdPregnancy testObstetricsGestationCullingVeterinary medicineBiologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Timely diagnosis of pregnancy and pregnancy loss is economically important. A commercially available pregnancy-associated glycoprotein milk assay is offered through routine Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI) testing for diagnosis of pregnancy. The objective was to complete a cost-benefit analysis of the milk pregnancy test for confirmation of pregnancy. The test can be used to complement, or as an alternative to, veterinary diagnosis by palpation or ultrasound. CanWest DHI currently recommends using the test for confirmation of pregnancy ≥ 60 d in gestation. Therefore, for this analysis it was assumed cows had been previously diagnosed pregnant. The model included 4 simulated pregnancy confirmation strategies: 1) no confirmatory testing, 2) confirmation by milk PAG test, 3) confirmatory examination by a veterinarian, and 4) confirmation using a combination of the milk test and veterinary exam. The analysis was done by simulations of economic outcomes using a cow-level stochastic model (with @Risk for Excel) with uniform distributions for additional days open due to testing frequency. Model assumptions were that cows became eligible for testing at 60 d in gestation, the herd had biweekly veterinary visits, and was enrolled in DHI milk recording with a milk test every 5 wk. Data from the current literature were used to model input variables associated with losses due to days open (for cows eligible to be re-inseminated after pregnancy loss) and culling after pregnancy loss for cows too late in lactation to re-inseminate. The base cost of veterinary exam was $2 and the milk test was $6. For each scenario, 1,000 simulations were run generating a minimum, maximum, and mean value. The most costly option was no confirmatory testing. The benefit of confirmatory testing compared to no confirmatory testing was between $11.80 and $17.90 per cow. On average, the milk test was $6.10 more costly per cow tested than veterinary confirmation. Under the assumed inputs, milk testing would have to cost < $1.00 or occur weekly to have a lower cost than veterinary confirmation. Sensitivity analysis indicated that the models were most sensitive to the proportion of cows found open and the proportion of open cows eligible to re-inseminate. Models were found to be less sensitive to the cost of a day open, additional days open due to testing frequency, and the cost of the test. Pregnancy loss is a costly event but the cost can be limited by pregnancy confirmation testing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicMilk Quality and Mastitis in Dairy Cows→French-language works237,207→