MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388343015 · doi:10.3168/jdsc.2023-0403

Validation of a leg-mounted pedometer for the measurement of steps in lactating Holstein cows

2023· article· en· W4388343015 on OpenAlexafffund
J.C.S. Marques, T.A. Burnett, J. Denis-Robichaud, A.M.L. Madureira, R.L.A. Cerri

Bibliographic record

VenueJDS Communications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPedometerStandard deviationMathematicsConfidence intervalStatisticsAnimal sciencePearson product-moment correlation coefficientLimits of agreementMedicinePhysical activityPhysical therapyBiologyNuclear medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to validate the pedometer AfiAct II (AfiMilk) for the measurement of steps in lactating Holstein cows housed in a freestall design by assessing its agreement with visual observation of step counts. A total of 41 primiparous (n = 12) and multiparous (n = 29) cows were enrolled in the study between August and September 2018. Steps were monitored continuously by the pedometer and visually assessed for a 24-h period using video recordings. Visually observed steps were categorized as walking and stationary steps. The total number of steps taken per cow was calculated using the sum of walking and stationary steps. Unprocessed step count data from the study day were retrieved from the AfiMilk system in time-blocks of approximately 15 min. Repeated measures correlation was used to quantify the association between the pedometer measurements and visual observation of step counts. Nonindependence among observations were accounted adjusting for interindividual (cow) variability with an analysis of covariance. Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were categorized from negligible (0.00-0.30) to very high (0.90-1.00). Bland-Altman plots were created to evaluate the bias between the pedometer and visual observations. A total of 2,261 time-blocks were used in this study with an average (mean ± standard deviation) of 55.14 ± 8.1 time-blocks per cow. A high correlation was found for the evaluation between the pedometer and observed walking steps (r = 0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.73-0.76), stationary steps (r = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.69-0.63), and total steps (r = 0.88; 95% CI = 0.87-0.89). The results of the Bland-Altman plot suggested limited bias between the pedometer step counts and visual observation of steps, independent of the type of steps. Numerical differences and several time-block differences outside of the 95% interval of agreement suggested an overestimation of step counts by the pedometer, which increased as the number of steps increased. The pedometer measured, on average, 97.6 ± 118.5 (28%), 249.2 ± 126.2 (125%), and 297.2 ± 205.4 (196%) steps/day more than the visual observed total steps, stationary steps, and walking steps, respectively. Our findings indicate that the pedometer counts all movement in which the pedometer leg is lifted off the floor without distinguishing if there was body movement of the animal.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.296
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.135 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJDS CommunicationsSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207