MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414830786 · doi:10.1093/jas/skaf300.497

PSIV-10 Towards automated anemia detection: AI models for accurate FAMACHA classification in outdoor environments.

2025· article· en· W4414830786 on OpenAlexaff
Aaron Klingler, Davia Brown, ava Mincey, Rocquel Tunner, Aftab Siddique, Jan Van Wyk, Eric R. Morgan, Thomas H Terrill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAnomaly Detection Techniques and Applications
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineCohen's kappaPattern recognition (psychology)KappaArtificial neural networkRobustness (evolution)Backpropagation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Accurate classification of FAMACHA images is essential for effective anemia detection in small ruminants. However, environmental conditions such as lighting variations (daylight vs. shade) can influence image quality and diagnostic accuracy. This study aimed to evaluate the performance of Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Backpropagation Neural Network (BPNN) models in classifying FAMACHA images taken in daylight (No Shade = 1) and shaded areas (Shade = 0). A dataset of 1000 images (500 per group) was analyzed using machine learning models, with five different data augmentation techniques applied to enhance robustness and using 10 10-fold nested cross-validation techniques. Model performance was evaluated based on accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score, and Cohen’s Kappa statistic to measure classification agreement. The SVM model achieved an overall accuracy of 98%, with a precision and recall of 0.98 for both shaded and non-shaded images. The BPNN model obtained an accuracy of 97%, with precision ranging from 0.94 to 1.00 and recall values from 0.94 to 1.00. Cohen’s Kappa values were 0.959 for SVM and 0.939 for BPNN, indicating strong agreement between predicted and actual classifications. Both models demonstrated high reliability, though SVM performed slightly better in handling lighting variations. The SVM model excelled in balancing classification across both conditions, while BPNN exhibited minor inconsistencies in differentiating shaded images due to slight recall fluctuations. The findings indicate that SVM is the superior model for FAMACHA image classification, particularly in outdoor settings where lighting conditions vary. The high Cohen’s Kappa scores suggest strong inter-model agreement, reinforcing the effectiveness of machine learning in automating FAMACHA classification. Incorporating data augmentation enhanced model generalizability, reducing the risk of misclassification due to lighting inconsistencies. Further research will explore the integration of ensemble learning techniques, combining the strengths of SVM and BPNN to enhance classification robustness. Expanding the dataset to include diverse environmental conditions and using deep learning approaches such as convolutional neural networks (CNNs) may improve performance further. The development of mobile-based AI applications for real-time, automated FAMACHA assessment would significantly benefit precision livestock farming. By leveraging AI-powered image classification, livestock health monitoring can become more efficient, scalable, and accessible, reducing reliance on manual assessments and improving parasite management strategies in small ruminant farming.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.298 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicAnomaly Detection Techniques and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207