MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411140005 · doi:10.3168/jds.2024-25970

Predicting reticuloruminal pH and subacute ruminal acidosis of individual cows using machine learning and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy milk analysis

2025· article· en· W4411140005 on OpenAlexaffabout
T Touil, François Huot, S. Claveau, A. Bunel, D.E. Santschi, R. Gervais, É R Paquet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicSpectroscopy and Chemometric Analyses
Canadian institutionsSte. Anne's HospitalAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcidosisFourier transform infrared spectroscopyChemistryFourier transformAnimal scienceFood scienceInternal medicineMedicineMathematicsBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Low reticuloruminal pH (rpH) for a prolonged period could lead to SARA. This disease negatively affects cow health and is associated with monetary losses for the dairy industry. The aim of this study was to predict rpH and SARA separately using different machine learning (ML) models applied to Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR) spectra obtained from routine DHI milk analysis of individual cows. A total of 107 primiparous and multiparous Holstein cows were selected from 12 commercial farms in Québec, Canada, and their rpH was continuously monitored for 150 d using wireless boluses. In parallel, 2,634 individual milk samples were collected in the morning and afternoon and analyzed to obtain FTIR spectra. After the cleaning process, 1,744 samples remained, evenly divided into 872 morning (a.m.) and 872 afternoon (p.m.) samples. The FTIR and rpH data were combined to create 3 equally balanced datasets for ML model development: one for a.m. samples, one for p.m. samples, and one composed of both a.m. and p.m. samples, with 872 samples in each dataset. Various spectra preprocessing methods were evaluated, including using the first derivative of the spectra and filtering with 3 different sets of spectra. Additionally, different ML algorithms, including partial least squares, random forest, and gradient boosting, were used to predict rpH and SARA. A total of 36 different models were developed and evaluated for both rpH and SARA prediction. All ML models were assessed using 3 different cross-validation (C-V) methods: nested 10-fold, nested leave-one-farm-out (LOFO), and nested leave-cows-out (LCO) C-V. For rpH prediction, the best performance was achieved using nested 10-fold C-V with median R 2 values of 0.26, 0.26, and 0.22 for the a.m., p.m., and a.m./p.m. datasets, respectively. However, these performances were likely overoptimistic as none of the models evaluated using nested LOFO or nested LCO C-V obtained R 2 higher than 0.12. Unlike rpH, SARA prediction accuracies evaluated using nested LOFO (a.m.: 59%, p.m.: 69%, a.m./p.m.: 64%), and nested LCO (a.m.: 67%, p.m.: 66%, a.m./p.m.: 64%) were closer to the nested 10-fold C-V. These results indicated that rpH was likely not predictable from FTIR, but SARA can be predicted separately and directly from FTIR with 69% accuracy from routine DHI milk samples of individual cows.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.291
Teacher spread0.279 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicSpectroscopy and Chemometric AnalysesFrench-language works237,207