MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393930690 · doi:10.3390/ani14071040

Epidemiology of Digital Dermatitis in Western Canadian Feedlot Cattle

2024· article· en· W4393930690 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sarah Erickson, Calvin W. Booker, Jiming Song, Eugene Janzen, Murray Jelinski, K. S. Schwartzkopf-Genswein

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldVeterinary
TopicAnimal Behavior and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of SaskatchewanUniversity of Calgary
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaBeef Cattle Research Council
KeywordsFeedlotIncidence (geometry)MedicineRate ratioEpidemiologyVeterinary medicineDemographyAnimal scienceConfidence intervalBiologyInternal medicineMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Digital dermatitis (DD) is an emerging disease in feedlot cattle. Our objective was to identify animal- and feedlot-level risk factors for DD by analyzing individual animal health records (n = 1,209,883) and feedlot-level records from western Canadian feedlots (n = 28) between 2014 and 2018, inclusive. The risk of a DD diagnosis was higher (incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 2.08, 95% CI 1.52 to 2.86) in cattle sourced from confined background operations (CB) versus cattle sourced from auction markets (AM). Conversely, ranch direct (RD) cattle were (IRR = 0.02, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.30) lower risk than AM cattle of being diagnosed with DD. The risk of being diagnosed with DD was higher in females than in males. The magnitude of the risk in females over males was influenced by annual DD incidence in low morbidity years (2014, 2017, and 2018) (IRR = 2.02, 95% CI 1.27 to 3.19), medium morbidity years (2016) (IRR = 2.95, 95% CI 1.64 to 5.33), and high morbidity years (2015) (IRR = 5.41, 95% CI 3.27 to 8.95). At the feedlot-level, the risk of a diagnosis of DD was lower in small capacity (SCF) versus large capacity feedlots (LCF) (IRR = 0.24, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.76). Future research should focus on identifying factors that may propagate disease transmission between cattle of different sexes and from different acquisition sources.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.370
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207