Diagnostic accuracy of Wisconsin and California scoring systems to detect bovine respiratory disease in preweaning dairy calves under subtropical environmental conditions
Open accessAbstract
Bovine respiratory disease (BRD) is a multifactorial disease which causes short- and long-term negative effects. Early detection is crucial for a prompt response to therapy, as well as to decrease mortality risk. Clinical scoring systems have been developed mostly in North America for screening calves at risk or suspected of having BRD, and these tools have also been applied in subtropical and tropical countries. However, it has been unknown whether these scoring systems had the same accuracy in tropical environmental conditions. Therefore, this study evaluated the accuracy of 4 different field techniques, as well as serum haptoglobin (HAP), to diagnose BRD in Holstein dairy calves in subtropical conditions. The tests used to diagnose BRD were thoracic ultrasound (TUS; positive if consolidation depth ≥1 cm), thoracic auscultation (AUSC; positive if crackles, wheezes, or silent areas were present), Wisconsin score (WISC; ≥2 categories with scores of ≥2), and California score (CALIF; positive if total score ≥5). Also, HAP was measured and classified as positive if ≥15 mg/dL. Heifers between 30 d of age and weaning (n = 482), residing on 17 commercial dairies in São Paulo state, were enrolled in this study. Bayesian latent class models were used with informative priors to evaluate the accuracy of TUS, AUSC, and HAP, and noninformative priors for the accuracy of WISC and CALIF. The percentage of calves positive for each test on each farm ranged from 0 to 56% for WISC, 11-51% for CALIF, 0-72% for TUS, 0-32% for AUSC, and 0-100% for HAP. The sensitivity (Se; 95% credible interval) and specificity (Sp) for WISC were 77.9% (64.8-90.2) and 81.9% (76.3-88.2). For CALIF, the Se was 67.1% (53.6-80.1) and Sp 79.1% (73.9-84.6). For TUS Se was 59.8% (46.5-73.1) and Sp was 84.8% (80.0-89.5), and for AUSC, Se was 58.8% (41.3-79.8) and Sp was 98.6% (95.7-99.9). The Se and Sp of HAP was 67.6% (55.3-78.8) and 46.7% (41.4-52.2), respectively. The performance of the scoring systems was similar to, or better than, the performance found in North American studies, despite the fact that calves were in a tropical environment.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Multiple scoring systems have been developed and evaluated across various environmental conditions to bring uniformity to BRD case definitions.
“To bring uniformity to BRD case definitions, multiple scoring systems have been developed and evaluated across various environmental conditions [61,64].”
From Strategies for Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) Diagnosis and Prognosis: A Comprehensive Overview (2024) · cites this paper as [64]
The title passage (section and page unavailable) identifies a study evaluating the Wisconsin and California scoring systems under subtropical conditions. Our copy does not establish evaluation across various environmental conditions or say the systems were developed to bring uniformity to BRD case definitions; searches for those points returned only the title and DOI links. (LLM, conf=0.73)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Love, W. J., Lehenbauer, T. W., Kass, P. H., Van Eenennaam, A. L., & Aly, S. S. (2014) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.238 · Cited by 228 · see citing works
On-Farm Use of Ultrasonography for Bovine Respiratory Disease
Ollivett, T. L., & Buczinski, S. (2016) · Veterinary Clinics of North America: Food Animal Practice · doi:10.1016/j.cvfa.2015.09.001 · Cited by 177 · see citing works
Self-citationDunn, T. R., Ollivett, T. L., Renaud, D. L., Leslie, K. E., LeBlanc, S. J., Duffield, T. F., & Kelton, D. F. (2018) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2017-13870 · Cited by 102 · see citing works
Joshi, V., Gupta, V. K., Bhanuprakash, A. G., Mandal, R. S. K., Dimri, U., & Ajith, Y. (2018) · Microbial Pathogenesis · doi:10.1016/j.micpath.2018.01.001 · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Adams, E. A., & Buczinski, S. (2016) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2015-10260 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
Self-citationDevelopment of a Clinical Scoring System for Bovine Respiratory Disease in Weaned Dairy Calves
Maier, G. U., Rowe, J. D., Lehenbauer, T. W., Karle, B. M., Williams, D. R., Champagne, J. D., & Aly, S. S. (2019) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2018-15474 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Buczinski, S., Fecteau, G., Dubuc, J., & Francoz, D. (2018) · Preventive Veterinary Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2018.05.004 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Self-citationMoisá, S. J., Aly, S. S., Lehenbauer, T. W., Love, W. J., Rossitto, P. V., Van Eenennaam, A. L., Trombetta, S. C., Bortoluzzi, E. M., & Hulbert, L. E. (2019) · Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation · doi:10.1177/1040638718807242 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Berman, J., Francoz, D., Abdallah, A., Dufour, S., & Buczinski, S. (2021) · Journal of Dairy Science · doi:10.3168/jds.2021-20503 · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Strategies for Bovine Respiratory Disease (BRD) Diagnosis and Prognosis: A Comprehensive Overview
Kamel, M. S., Davidson, J. L., & Verma, M. S. (2024) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani14040627 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
“To bring uniformity to BRD case definitions, multiple scoring systems have been developed and evaluated across various environmental conditions [61,64].”
MethodLindley, G., Blackie, N., Wathes, D. C., & Booth, R. E. (2025) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani15030360 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Decaris, N., Buczinski, S., Tárdon, D. I. C., Camargo, L., Schllemer, N. R., Hagen, S. C. F., Woolums, A. R., & Gomes, V.
- Affiliations
- Université de Montréal (CA)
- Universidade de São Paulo (BR)
- Mississippi State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Gomes, Viviani
- Venue
- Journal of Dairy Science
- Publisher
- American Dairy Science Association
- Published
- 2022-09
- Volume
- 105
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 7750-7763
- ISSN
- 0022-0302 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W4289528224
- Cited by
- 25
- References
- 9
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5
- FWCI
- 4.99
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Dairy Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal health and immunology
- Life Sciences › Immunology and Microbiology › Microbiology › Microbial infections and disease research
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Effects of Environmental Stressors on Livestock
- Keywords
- bovine respiratory disease, preweaning dairy calves, clinical scoring systems, thoracic ultrasound, haptoglobin, diagnostic accuracy, subtropical conditions, Bayesian latent class model, Holstein heifers, disease screening, sensitivity and specificity
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Bayes Theorem, Brazil, California, Cattle, Cattle Diseases, Female, Respiratory Tract Diseases, Wisconsin, Bovine Respiratory Disease Complex
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