MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284971548 · doi:10.3168/jdsc.2022-0227

Evaluation of an infrared thermography camera for measuring body temperature in dairy calves

2022· article· en· W4284971548 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJDS Communications · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicThermography and Photoacoustic Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs
KeywordsThermographyRectal temperatureStatisticsCorrelation coefficientLinear regressionNuclear medicineMathematicsMedicineAnimal scienceInfraredPhysicsOpticsInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The objective of this diagnostic accuracy study was to validate an infrared thermography (IRT) camera and its software (FLIR One, FLIR, Global) for accuracy and precision for ocular temperature readings to serve as a proxy for rectal temperature in commercially housed calves. A total of 318 male Holstein calves were enrolled into this study from the day of arrival to a calf rearing facility until 14 d later. Researchers took an ocular temperature reading using an IRT camera, and a rectal temperature on each calf each day in the morning. The reference standard method for body temperature in the calves was rectal temperature. We assessed the data for agreement between the IRT and the reference standard using Pearson correlations by calf (accuracy), coefficients of determination (precision), and Bland-Altman plots for bias. In addition, a logistic regression model was built using the reference method as the outcome, with IRT as an explanatory variable to assess the diagnostic accuracy of IRT as an indicator of fever (rectal temperature 39.5C). There was a negligible correlation between the IRT readings and rectal temperature (r = 0.22) and the coefficient of determination for IRT to predict rectal temperature was negligible (R 2 = 0.05), suggesting poor precision. The average mean difference between the IRT data and rectal temperature was 0.55C, and the differences between IRT and rectal formed a linear line around the mean difference, suggesting the Bland-Altman analyses showed proportional error and bias. The optimal probability cut-off for IRT readings for fever was at 39.5C, and had a receiver operating characteristic area under the curve of 0.67, a sensitivity of 61%, a specificity of 71%, and 78% (3,134/4,427) of the samples were correctly labeled as either having a fever or not using IRT readings. In summary, the IRT camera and software were not validated for serving as a proxy for rectal temperature in commercially housed calves due to poor precision, and proportional error partially explained by ambient environmental conditions. We suggest that this infrared thermography system should not replace rectal temperature readings for use in commercially housed calves.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.760
Threshold uncertainty score0.402

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.246 · 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