MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3092705836 · doi:10.3168/jds.2020-18191

Prevalence of foot lesions in Québec dairy herds from 2015 to 2018

2020· article· en· W3092705836 on OpenAlexaffabout
Juan Carlos Arango‐Sabogal, André Desrochers, R. Lacroix, Anne-Marie Christen, Simon Dufour

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsSte. Anne's HospitalUniversité de MontréalFonds de Recherche du Québec – Nature et TechnologiesCegep de Saint Hyacinthe
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHerdHoofMilkingFoot (prosody)MedicineHeelBreedAnimal scienceDairy cattleVeterinary medicineBiologyAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our first objective was to estimate the prevalence of foot lesions by type of milking system in dairy cows examined during regular hoof-trimming sessions between 2015 and 2018 in Québec dairy herds. A secondary objective was to describe the effect of day-to-day variation, cow, and herd characteristics on the prevalence of foot lesions. Data included 52,427 observations (on a cow during a specific trimming session) performed on 28,470 cows (≥2 yr old) from 355 herds. Only observations from trimming sessions in which ≥90% of the lactating herd was trimmed were considered. Lesions were recorded at the hoof level by 17 trained hoof trimmers between March 23, 2015, and July 10, 2018, using a computerized recording system. Hoof-level information was then matched with cow information and centralized at the Eastern Canada Dairy Herd Improvement. Foot lesions were classified into 6 categories: infectious, white line disease, heel erosion, ulcers, hemorrhages, and any type of foot lesions. Prevalence of each outcome was quantified using the marginal predicted mean probability estimated from a null generalized linear mixed model with a logit link, and accounted for clustering of observations by cow and by herd. Variance was partitioned to assess the variation in the probability of the outcomes attributable to each level of the data structure (day of exam, cow, and herd). Prevalence of a given foot lesion as function of milking system and of various explanatory variables (mean herd size, herd average daily production, breed of the cow, age of the cow at trimming, and year of the visit) was then estimated using a generalized linear mixed model. At least 1 foot lesion was observed in 29% of cows examined during regular trimming sessions in Québec from 2015 to 2018. Prevalence for any type of lesion was 27% for pipeline, 38% for robotic milking, and 41% for milking parlors. The highest prevalence of infectious lesions (mainly digital dermatitis) was observed in milking parlors and robotic systems, while the most prevalent lesions in pipeline were hemorrhages. Herd-level factors explained most of the disease probability for infectious diseases, heel erosion, and hemorrhages. Therefore, control of these diseases should be based on applying best herd-management practices. On the other hand, probabilities of white line disease and sole ulcers were mainly determined by cow-level characteristics.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.127

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.269 · 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

Citations15
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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