MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2921315578 · doi:10.1093/tas/txz008

Prevalence and lameness-associated risk factors in Alberta feedlot cattle

2019· article· en· W2921315578 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueTranslational Animal Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Calgary
FundersGeneralitat de CatalunyaAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaAlberta Livestock and Meat AgencyCentres de Recerca de CatalunyaAlberta Beef Producers
KeywordsLamenessFeedlotMedicineBovine respiratory diseaseVeterinary medicineBeef cattlePopulationAnimal scienceBiologySurgeryEnvironmental healthImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Lameness in cattle is a health and welfare concern; however, limited information is available on risk factors and the relationship between lameness and common diseases like bovine respiratory disease (BRD). Therefore, the objectives of this study were to: 1) identify prevalence of lameness in feedlot cattle and related risk factors of cattle diagnosed as lame; and 2) determine associations between BRD occurrence and lameness. Feedlot cattle health records were available from 28 feedlots for 10 yr. The data set consisted of 663,838 cattle records, with 13.9% (92,156) diagnosed with a disease, including 32.3%, 46.0%, and 22.0% with lameness, BRD, and other diagnoses, respectively. Lameness was classified into four categories: foot rot (FR), joint infections (JI), lame with no visible swelling (LNVS), and injuries (INJ), with a prevalence of 74.5%, 16.1%, 6.1%, and 3.1%, respectively. Lameness was compared across cattle types (arrival date and weight) as well as age classification (calf vs. yearling), gender (steer vs. heifer), and season of placement in the feedlot (spring, summer, fall, and winter). Within the disease-diagnosed population, lameness represented 28.5% of treated fall-placed calves, 38.5% of winter-placed calves, and 40.8% of treated yearlings. Foot rot was the most common diagnosis with 74.5% of all lameness diagnoses, with winter- and fall-placed calves more likely to be diagnosed with FR compared to yearlings (OR: 1.19, 95% CI: 1.10–1.30 and OR: 1.46, 95% CI: 1.38–1.55, respectively). Joint infections were the second most common diagnosis (16.1%). Compared to yearlings, fall-placed calves had a higher odds (OR: 3.64, 95% CI: 3.12–4.24) for JI. Injuries and LNVS were the least common but again fall-placed calves had higher odds of this diagnosis compared to yearlings (OR: 2.26, 95% CI: 1.70–2.99 and OR: 9.10, 95% CI: 6.26–13.2, respectively). Gender was significantly different for JI as steers were less likely affected compared to heifers (OR: 0.687, 95% CI: 0.545–0.867), and more likely affected by LNVS (OR: 2.46, 95% CI: 1.57–3.84). Of all lameness-associated deaths, JI accounted for almost 50%. Finally, cattle diagnosed with BRD were subsequently more likely to be diagnosed with INJ, JI, or LNVS (P < 0.001 for all comparisons). In conclusion, animal type and gender were associated with type of lameness diagnoses, allowing feedlots to allocate resources to groups at highest risk and focus on early intervention strategies.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.279
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.256 · 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