Supplemental data for: Characterising and describing the literature on the impacts of umbilical care on health outcomes and risk factors examined for umbilical health in intensively raised bovines: A scoping review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research abstract:The objective of this scoping review was to describe and characterize the existing literature regarding umbilical health and identify current gaps in knowledge. Six databases were searched for relevant primary research. Eligible studies must have examined umbilical health in an intensively raised bovine population. There were 4,250 articles that fit within the search terms and had their title and abstracts screened by two independent reviewers for potential relevance. From these, 724 full text articles were then screened, with 150 articles meeting the review criteria for data extraction. Seventeen were classified as descriptive, 24 were clinical trials, and 109 were analytical observational studies. Umbilical outcomes evaluated in descriptive studies were omphalitis (n = 11), parasitic infections of the umbilicus (n = 5), and umbilical hernias (n = 2). Only one clinical trial (n = 1) examined treatment of navel infections, whereas the remainder evaluated management factors that could be used to prevent a navel health outcome (n = 23), which included umbilical infections (n = 17), navel myasis (n = 3), navel measurements (n = 5), umbilical hernias (n = 1), and umbilical edema (n = 1). Analytical observational studies included studies examining risk factors for umbilical health (n = 60) and studies examining umbilical health itself as a risk factor (n = 60). Studies examining risk factors for umbilical health classified their outcomes as umbilical infections (n= 28), 11 of which were undefined and one which defined as diagnosed by a veterinarian. Umbilical hernias (n=8), two of which were only defined as diagnosed by a veterinarian and one which diagnosed by the herd manager. The remaining umbilical outcomes included scoring the navel sheath/flap size (n = 16), navel myasis (n = 2), and measurements of the umbilicus (n = 6). Studies examining umbilical health as a risk factor defined the umbilical risk factors as umbilical infection (n=39) of which 13 were undefined, umbilical hernias (n=8) of which 4 were undefined (several articles examined both umbilical infections and hernias), navel dipping (n = 12), navel/sheath scores as part of conformation classification for breeding (n = 2), navel measurements (n = 3), and umbilical cord drying times (n = 2). This review highlights the areas in need of future umbilical health research such as clinical trials evaluating the efficacy of different treatments of umbilical infection. It also emphasizes the importance of future studies to clearly define umbilical health outcomes of interest.Data description:This supplementary document presents data aimed at describing and characterizing the existing literature regarding umbilical health in bovines. Literature was gathered using a pre-defined search strategy from 6 databases and underwent screening of title and abstracts followed by full texts. A total of 150 articles met the search criteria and were included in this review, of these, 17 were classified as descriptive studies, 24 were clinical trials, and 109 were analytical observational studies.
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 | 0.006 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.024 | 0.031 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.642 | 0.064 |
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".