Cited by 15Smart Agriculture and AIAnimal Behavior and Welfare StudiesAnimal health and immunology

Use of pattern recognition techniques for early detection of morbidity in receiving feedlot cattle 1

Moya, D., Silasi, R., McAllister, T. A., Genswein, B., Crowe, T., Marti, S., Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K. S.·2015·Journal of Animal Science

Abstract

Two groups of cattle were used to develop (model data set: 384 heifers, 228 ± 22.7 kg BW, monitored over a 225-d feeding period) and to validate (naïve data set: 384 heifers, 322 ± 34.7 kg BW, monitored over a 142-d feeding period) the use of feeding behavior pattern recognition techniques to predict morbidity in newly arrived feedlot cattle. In the model data set, cattle were defined as morbid (MO) if they were removed from their pen to be treated due to visual observation of clinical signs of bovine respiratory disease and healthy (HL) if they remained within their pen and lacked lung lesions at slaughter. Individual feeding behavior parameters collected with a GrowSafe automated feeding behavior monitoring system were reduced via principal component analysis to 5 components that captured 99% of the variability in the data set. Combinations of clustering and cluster classification strategies applied to those components, along with pattern recognition techniques over different time windows, produced a total of 105 models from which precision, negative predictive value, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy were calculated by comparing its predictions with the actual health status of individual cattle as determined by visual assessment. When the models with the best specificity (models 79 and 87), sensitivity (models 33 and 66), and accuracy (models 3 and 14) in the model data set were used in a naïve data set, models 79 and 87 were not able to predict any MO heifers (0%), w…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2527/jas.2015-8907

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • This supports previous findings that pattern recognition can identify significant feeding behavior deviations in cattle before obvious BRD signs occur.

    “This supports previous findings that pattern recognition can identify significant feeding behavior deviations in cattle before obvious BRD signs occur [105].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moya, D., Silasi, R., McAllister, T. A., Genswein, B., Crowe, T., Marti, S., & Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K. S.
Affiliations
  • Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada (CA)
  • University of Saskatchewan (CA)
Corresponding author
Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K. S.
Venue
Journal of Animal Science
Published
2015-07-01
Volume
93
Issue
7
Pages
3623-3638
ISSN
  • 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-3163
OpenAlex
W2405475191
Cited by
15
References
2
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Animal Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Smart Agriculture and AI
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal Behavior and Welfare Studies
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal health and immunology
Keywords
feedlot cattle, bovine respiratory disease, heifers, cluster classification, principal component analysis, pattern recognition, disease prediction, cattle health
MeSH terms
Animals, Cattle, Cattle Diseases, Feeding Behavior, Female, Models, Biological, Pattern Recognition, Automated, Respiratory Tract Diseases

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review