Associations between Feeding Behaviors Collected from an Automated Milk Feeder and Neonatal Calf Diarrhea in Group Housed Dairy Calves: A Case-Control Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this case-control study was to determine if feeding behavior data collected from an automated milk feeder (AMF) could be used to predict neonatal calf diarrhea (NCD) in the days surrounding diagnosis in pre-weaned group housed dairy calves. Data were collected from two research farms in Ontario between 2017 and 2020 where calves fed using an AMF were health scored daily and feeding behavior data (milk intake (mL/d), drinking speed (mL/min), number of rewarded or unrewarded visits) was collected. Calves with NCD were pair matched to healthy controls (31 pairs) by farm, gender, and age at case diagnosis to assess for differences in feeding behavior between case and control calves. Calves were first diagnosed with NCD on day 0, and a NCD case was defined as calves with a fecal score of ≥2 for 2 consecutive days, where control calves remained healthy. Repeated measure mixed linear regression models were used to determine if there were differences between case and control calves in their daily AMF feeding behavior data in the days surrounding diagnosis of NCD (-3 to +5 days). Calves with NCD consumed less milk on day 0, day 1, day 3, day 4 and day 5 following diagnosis compared to control calves. Calves with NCD also had fewer rewarded visits to the AMF on day -1, and day 0 compared to control calves. However, while there was a NCD status x day interaction for unrewarded visits, there was only a tendency for differences between NCD and control calves on day 0. In this study, feeding behaviors were not clinically useful to make diagnosis of NCD due to insufficient diagnostic ability. However, feeding behaviors are a useful screening tool for producers to identify calves requiring further attention.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".