MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200546862 · doi:10.3168/jds.2021-21046

A scoping review of the analytical literature concerning nonambulatory dairy cattle

2021· review· en· W4200546862 on OpenAlexaffabout
William McFarlane, D.L. Renaud, Cassandra N. Reedman, T.F. Duffield, Matthew B. Van Camp, Charlotte B. Winder

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMedicineSequelaRandomized controlled trialSystematic reviewData extractionIntensive care medicineMEDLINESurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Nonambulatory dairy cattle pose a complex problem due to the challenges associated with prevention, appropriate treatment and management, and arriving at an accurate prognosis. There is a breadth of literature regarding this topic, of which there is currently no formal synthesis. The objective of this scoping review was to describe and characterize the literature investigating risk factors, sequela, preventions, treatments, and prognostic factors for nonambulatory conditions in dairy cattle, with the intent of qualitatively synthesizing knowledge of the topic and identifying gaps in the literature. A literature search was conducted in 6 databases and 2 conference proceeding archives, which returned 7,568 unique articles. Initial screening of abstracts resulted in 1,544 articles reviewed at the full-text stage, of which 379 were included for data extraction. Over 75% of the included literature was published after 1980, and the most common countries in which these studies took place were the United States (n = 72), Canada (18), Sweden (17), and Germany (17). Common eligibility criteria used for inclusion were geographic region (97) and parity (92). Of the 379 studies included in this review, 144 were randomized controlled trials and 235 were observational studies. The majority of the controlled trials assessed prevention of nonambulatory conditions (116), most commonly through supplementation of vitamin D (27) and calcium (25) or the provision of anionic salts (22). Of the 28 studies focusing on treatment of nonambulatory conditions, 26 focused on calcium administration. Becoming nonambulatory was evaluated as an outcome in 165 of the observational studies. Frequently measured risk factors for becoming nonambulatory included hematological variables, such as blood calcium (73), phosphorus (53) and magnesium (42), and other factors such as parity (35) and breed (22). Recovery from a nonambulatory condition was the outcome in 31 of the observational studies, with commonly measured prognostic indicators being calcium (9), phosphorus (9), and duration of recumbency (7). Nonambulatory disorders were measured as risk factors in 53 of the observational studies, with the most commonly assessed outcomes including disorders of the transition period (11), and death or euthanasia (11). The most common terms used to describe nonambulatory conditions were "milk fever" (199) and "parturient paresis" (147). These terms were only further defined with explicit symptomatic criteria in 193 of the 379 studies in this review. Recumbency was the most commonly used of these criteria (144), followed by inability to rise (55). Potential gaps in the literature concerning nonambulatory dairy cattle that were identified in the present review included investigation of prognostic indicators for recovery from nonambulatory conditions that are applicable on farm, treatment alternatives to calcium administration, and guidance regarding the appropriate usage of terms meant to categorize nonambulatory dairy cattle.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.064
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.092

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.064
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.005
Bibliometrics0.0330.030
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.281 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207