Diagnostic accuracy of Wisconsin and California scoring systems to detect bovine respiratory disease in preweaning dairy calves under subtropical environmental conditions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is a multifactorial disease which causes short- and long-term negative effects. Early detection is crucial for a prompt response to therapy, as well as to decrease mortality risk. Clinical scoring systems have been developed mostly in North America for screening calves at risk or suspected of having BRD, and these tools have also been applied in subtropical and tropical countries. However, it has been unknown whether these scoring systems had the same accuracy in tropical environmental conditions. Therefore, this study evaluated the accuracy of 4 different field techniques, as well as serum haptoglobin (HAP), to diagnose BRD in Holstein dairy calves in subtropical conditions. The tests used to diagnose BRD were thoracic ultrasound (TUS; positive if consolidation depth ≥1 cm), thoracic auscultation (AUSC; positive if crackles, wheezes, or silent areas were present), Wisconsin score (WISC; ≥2 categories with scores of ≥2), and California score (CALIF; positive if total score ≥5). Also, HAP was measured and classified as positive if ≥15 mg/dL. Heifers between 30 d of age and weaning (n = 482), residing on 17 commercial dairies in São Paulo state, were enrolled in this study. Bayesian latent class models were used with informative priors to evaluate the accuracy of TUS, AUSC, and HAP, and noninformative priors for the accuracy of WISC and CALIF. The percentage of calves positive for each test on each farm ranged from 0 to 56% for WISC, 11-51% for CALIF, 0-72% for TUS, 0-32% for AUSC, and 0-100% for HAP. The sensitivity (Se; 95% credible interval) and specificity (Sp) for WISC were 77.9% (64.8-90.2) and 81.9% (76.3-88.2). For CALIF, the Se was 67.1% (53.6-80.1) and Sp 79.1% (73.9-84.6). For TUS Se was 59.8% (46.5-73.1) and Sp was 84.8% (80.0-89.5), and for AUSC, Se was 58.8% (41.3-79.8) and Sp was 98.6% (95.7-99.9). The Se and Sp of HAP was 67.6% (55.3-78.8) and 46.7% (41.4-52.2), respectively. The performance of the scoring systems was similar to, or better than, the performance found in North American studies, despite the fact that calves were in a tropical environment.
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 | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".