A review of foot-related lameness in feedlot cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lameness is the second most prevalent morbidity in North American feedlot cattle and is both an animal welfare and economic concern. Lameness accounts for 30%–40% of all feedlot treatments with greater than 70% being foot-related lameness (FRL). This review focused on foot rot (FR), digital dermatitis (DD), and toe tip necrosis syndrome (TTNS). While there are significant study-to-study differences regarding the prevalence of FR, DD, and TTNS, it is unequivocal that FR is the most prevalent. Poor pen conditions are risk factors for both FR and DD, but the epidemiology of the two diseases is quite different. Whereas FR is diagnosed throughout the feeding period, DD typically occurs after 80 days on feed (DOF). TTNS is the least prevalent of the three FRL, but has the greatest negative effect on animal welfare and production performance. Most TTNS cases occur within 50 DOF with treatment failure leading to a significant loss in production performance and even death. This review provides an overview of the epidemiology of lameness in feedlot cattle with emphasis on the prevalence and risk factors associated with FR, DD, and TTNS.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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; 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".