MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2785958699 · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-14113

Short communication: Calf cleanliness does not predict diarrhea upon arrival at a veal calf facility

2018· article· en· W2785958699 on OpenAlexafffund
A. Graham, D.L. Renaud, T.F. Duffield, D.F. Kelton

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal health and immunology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersDairy Farmers of Ontario
KeywordsFecesDiarrheaAnimal scienceVeterinary medicineMedicineManureKappaMathematicsBiologyGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this study was to validate the use of cleanliness scores to identify the presence of diarrhea in calves. On arrival at a milk-fed veal facility, 452 calves were scored for hide cleanliness and fecal consistency by 1 of 2 observers. Fecal consistency was scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where fecal score of 0 = normal consistency, 1 = semiformed or pasty, 2 = loose feces, and 3 = watery feces; calves with a fecal score of 2 or 3 were classified as positive for diarrhea. Hide cleanliness was also scored on a scale of 0 to 3, where 0 = clean thighs and body with little to no manure on lower legs; 1 = tail head region and back end of calf are soiled with manure; 2 = tail head region, back end of calf, and thighs or legs are soiled with manure; and 3 = tail head region, back end of calf, thighs, and legs are soiled with manure. Of the calves scored, 188 calves (42%) were identified as having diarrhea based on hide cleanliness; however, only 78 calves (17%) were identified with diarrhea based on fecal consistency. The level of agreement between the 2 scoring methods were calculated, and a weighted kappa of 0.22 indicated only fair agreement between the 2 scoring methods. However, the sensitivity and specificity, calculated using fecal consistency ≥2 as the classification variable, were 67 and 63%, respectively, when a cut point of ≥1 for cleanliness score was used. A total of 222 calves scored at arrival were scored once per day for an additional 2 d following arrival. Calves were more likely to have more days with abnormal hide cleanliness than abnormal fecal consistency; 91 calves (41%) had an abnormal cleanliness score for at least 2 d, whereas only 21 calves (9%) had an abnormal fecal score for at least 2 d. We found poor correlation between total number of days with an abnormal cleanliness score and total number of days with an abnormal fecal score, indicating that consecutive observations of hide cleanliness would not improve the validity of using hide cleanliness. Thus, hide cleanliness is not a good indicator for identifying diarrhea in calves, and scoring fecal samples for consistency should be used to more accurately identify diarrhea in calves.

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)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.366
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicAnimal health and immunologyFrench-language works237,207