Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30371785›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2019

A novel automated system to acquire biometric and morphological measurements and predict body weight of pigs via 3D computer vision.

Arthur F A Fernandes, João R R Dórea, Robert Fitzgerald, William Herring, Guilherme J M Rosa

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.8field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Arthur F A FernandesDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
João R R DóreaDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
Robert FitzgeraldGenus PLC, Hendersonville, TN.
William HerringGenus PLC, Hendersonville, TN.
Guilherme J M RosaDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI.
University of Wisconsin–Madison · USGenus (United States) · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computer vision applications in livestock are appealing since they enable measurement of traits of interest without the need to directly interact with the animals. This allows the possibility of multiple measurements of traits of interest with minimal animal stress. In the current study, an automated computer vision system was devised and evaluated for extraction of features of interest, as body measurements and shape descriptors, and prediction of body weight in pigs. From the 655 pigs that had data collected 580 had more than 5 frames recorded and were used for development of the predictive models. The cross-validation for the models developed with data from nursery and finishing pigs presented an R2 ranging from 0.86 (random selected image) to 0.94 (median of images truncated on the third quartile), whereas with the dataset without nursery pigs, the R2 estimates ranged from 0.70 (random selected image) to 0.84 (median of images truncated on the third quartile). However, overall the mean absolute error was lower for the models fitted without data on nursery animals. From the body measures extracted from the image, body volume, area, and length were the most informative for prediction of body weight. The inclusion of the remaining body measurements (width and heights) or shape descriptors to the model promoted significant improvement of the predictions, whereas the further inclusion of sex and line effects were not significant.

Indexed as

Image Processing, Computer-AssistedAnimalsAutomationBiometryBody CompositionBody WeightSoftwareSwine

Identifiers

PMID30371785
PMCPMC6313152
OpenAlexW2898821016

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.