MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2610244554 · doi:10.3168/jds.2016-12257

Comparison of the efficacy of a commercial footbath product with copper sulfate for the control of digital dermatitis

2017· article· en· W2610244554 on OpenAlexaffabout
C. Jacobs, Karin Orsel, Steve Mason, Kevin M. Gray, Herman W. Barkema

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta MilkUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilkingMedicineFoot (prosody)HerdLogistic regressionVeterinary medicineAnimal scienceInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital dermatitis (DD) is the most prevalent foot lesion affecting dairy herds worldwide. Its implications include production losses and decreased animal welfare. Footbathing is the most common herd-level prevention strategy for DD. Because many common footbath products have negative environmental and health consequences, replacement products expected to have improved safety but equal efficacy are being developed. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of a new quaternary ammonium-based commercial footbath product (QAC) for reducing the prevalence of active DD lesions compared with an industry standard (copper sulfate; CuSO 4 ) and typical on-farm footbath practices. A controlled intervention trial was conducted on 19 Alberta dairy farms over 12 wk, with 9 farms allocated to the QAC group (1% QAC daily, 5 d/wk), 5 to the CuSO 4 group (5% CuSO 4 daily, 5 d/wk), and 5 to a noninterference group (maintained typical footbath practices). A total of 22,285 observations on 3,465 lactating cows were assessed for DD lesions and leg cleanliness in the milking parlor. Five farms discontinued use of the QAC product for various reasons. Noninferiority analysis was used to assess QAC ability to decrease the proportion of cows with 1 or more active DD lesions compared with CuSO 4 after 6 wk. Multilevel logistic regression models for repeated measures were used to evaluate efficacy of QAC compared with CuSO 4 and noninterference farms in reducing the prevalence of active DD lesions at the foot level over 12 wk. The noninferiority analysis determined that the proportion of cows with 1 or more active DD lesion decreased 2.19 (95% CI: 1.39–3.46) times less after 6 wk of study on the QAC farms compared with CuSO 4 farms, making QAC inferior to CuSO 4 . The multilevel logistic regression models determined that the proportion of active DD lesions increased in the QAC herds, whereas this proportion decreased in the CuSO 4 and noninterference herds over 12 wk. Additionally, cows in mid- and late-lactation had a higher odds of having active DD compared with fresh cows. Older cows (parity 3 and ≥4) had a decreased odds of active DD compared with first-parity cows. At the farm level, a higher baseline active DD prevalence resulted in increased odds of active DD; however, this did not modify the effect of treatment or week of study. We concluded that QAC was inferior to CuSO 4 and typical on-farm footbath practices, and further development of novel footbath products is required to develop an ideal alternative.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207