Describing and Characterizing the Literature Regarding Umbilical Health in Intensively Raised Cattle: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this scoping review was to describe and characterize the existing literature regarding umbilical health and identify gaps in knowledge. Six databases were searched for studies examining umbilical health in an intensively raised cattle population. There were 4249 articles initially identified; from these, 723 full text articles were then screened, with 150 articles included in the review. Studies were conducted in the USA (n = 41), Brazil (n = 24), Canada (n = 13), UK (n = 10), and 37 additional countries. Seventeen were classified as descriptive, 24 were clinical trials, and 109 were analytical observational studies. Umbilical outcomes evaluated in descriptive studies were infection (n = 11), parasitic infection (n = 5), and hernias (n = 2). Of the clinical trials, only one examined treatment of navel infections; the remainder evaluated preventative management factors for navel health outcomes (including infections (n = 17), myiasis (n = 3), measurements (n = 5), hernias (n = 1), and edema (n = 1)). Analytical observational studies examined risk factors for umbilical health (n = 60) and umbilical health as a risk factor (n = 60). Studies examining risk factors for umbilical health included navel health outcomes of infections (n = 28; 11 of which were not further defined), hernias (n = 8), scoring the navel sheath/flap size (n = 16), myiasis (n = 2), and measurements (n = 6). Studies examining umbilical health as a risk factor defined these risk factors as infection (n = 39; of which 13 were not further defined), hernias (n = 8; of which 4 were not further defined), navel dipping (n = 12), navel/sheath scores as part of conformation classification for breeding (n = 2), measurements (n = 3), and umbilical cord drying times (n = 2). This review highlights the areas in need of future umbilical health research such as clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of different treatments for umbilical infection. It also emphasizes the importance for future studies to clearly define umbilical health outcomes of interest, and consider standardization of these measures, including time at risk.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.033 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".