Combined Infrared Thermography and Agitated Behavior in Sows Improve Estrus Detection When Applied to Supervised Machine Learning Algorithms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The identification of estrus at the right moment allows for a higher success of fecundity with artificial insemination. Evaluating changes in body surface temperature of sows during the estrus period using an infrared thermography camera (ITC) can provide an accurate model to predict these changes. This pilot study comprised nine crossbred Large White x Landrace sows, providing 59 data records for analysis. Observed changes in the behavior and physiological signs of the sows signaled the identification of estrus. Images of the ocular area, ear tips, breast, back, vulva, and perianal area were collected with the ITC. The images were analyzed using the FLIR Thermal Studio Starter software. Infrared mean temperatures were reported and compared using ANOVA and Tukey–Kramer tests (p < 0.05). Supervised machine learning models were tested using random forest (RF), Conditional inference trees (Ctree), Partial least squares (PLS), and K-nearest neighbors (KNN), and the method performance was measured using a confusion matrix. The orbital region showed significant differences between estrus and non-estrus states in sows. In the confusion matrix, the algorithm predicted estrus with 87% accuracy in the test set, which contained 40% of the data, when agitated behavior was combined with orbital area temperature. These findings suggest the potential for integrating behavioral and physiological observations with orbital thermography and machine learning to detect estrus in sows under field conditions accurately.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".