Systematic review for optimizing sample size in dairy cow methane emission studies in temperate regions: A comprehensive methodological approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research introduces a systematic framework for calculating sample size in studies focusing on enteric methane ( CH 4 , g/kg of DMI) yield reduction in dairy cows. Adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, we conducted a comprehensive search across the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed Central databases for studies published from 2012 to 2023. The inclusion criteria were: studies reporting CH 4 yield and its variability in dairy cows, employing specific experimental designs (Latin Square Design ( LSD ), Crossover Design, Randomized Complete Block Design ( RCBD ), and Repeated Measures Design) and measurement methods (Open-circuit respirometry chambers ( RC ), the GreenFeed system, and the sulfur hexafluoride tracer technique), conducted in Canada, the United States and Europe. A total of 150 studies, which included 177 reports, met our criteria and were included in the database. Our methodology for using the database for sample size calculations began by defining 6 CH 4 yield reduction levels (5, 10, 15, 20, 30, and 50%). Utilizing an adjusted Cohen's f formula and a power analysis we calculated the sample sizes required for these reductions in balanced LSD and RCBD reports from studies involving 3 or 4 treatments. The results indicate that within-subject studies (i.e., LSD) require smaller sample sizes to detect CH 4 yield reductions compared with between-subject studies (i.e., RCBD). Although experiments using RC typically require fewer individuals due to their higher accuracy, our results demonstrate that this expected advantage is not evident in reports from RCBD studies with 4 treatments. A key innovation of this research is the development of a web-based tool that simplifies the process of sample size calculation (samplesizecalculator.ucdavis.edu). Developed using Python, this tool leverages the extensive database to provide tailored sample size recommendations for specific experimental scenarios. It ensures that experiments are adequately powered to detect meaningful differences in CH 4 emissions, thereby contributing to the scientific rigor of studies in this critical area of environmental and agricultural research. With its user-friendly interface and robust backend calculations, this tool represents a significant advancement in the methodology for planning and executing CH 4 emission studies in dairy cows, aligning with global efforts toward sustainable agricultural practices and environmental conservation.
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 | 0.272 | 0.511 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.022 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.036 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".