MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3136574018 · doi:10.21423/aabppro20134217

Comparison of thoracic auscultation, clinical score, and ultrasonography as indicators of bovine respiratory disease in pre-weaned dairy calves

2013· article· en· W3136574018 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Buczinski, Gianpiero Forte, David Francoz, A.M. Bélanger

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference Proceedings · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldImmunology and Microbiology
TopicMicrobial infections and disease research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBovine respiratory diseaseAuscultationMedicineNasal dischargePhysical examinationDairy cattleGold standard (test)Respiratory systemUltrasonographyVeterinary medicineInternal medicineAnimal scienceSurgeryBiologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Various strategies have been adopted to mitigate the impact of bovine respiratory disease (BRD) in dairy replacement calves. The diagnosis of BRD is challenging because there is no gold standard for its diagnosis on-farm. Several subjective scoring methods, such as the Calf Respiratory Health Score (CRHS) from the University of Wisconsin, which is based on rectal temperature, and subjective assessment of cough, ocular-nasal discharge and ear drooping, are available to help dairy producers identify calves with BRD. Additionally, practitioners can use thoracic auscultation, a fundamental part of the physical examination, to aid in the diagnosis of BRD. Recently, thoracic ultrasonography (TUS) has been used to detect calves with lung consolidation secondary to bronchopneumonia. The objectives of this study were to compare the different tools available for the diagnosis of BRD in preweaned dairy calves, and to assess the association of lung consolidation on the risk of dying within 30 days after the initial examination.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.057
Threshold uncertainty score0.644

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.344 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Association of Bovine Practitioners Conference ProceedingsSame topicMicrobial infections and disease researchFrench-language works237,207