Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35372536›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2022

V-QBA vs. QBA-How Do Video and Live Analysis Compare for Qualitative Behaviour Assessment?

A S Cooke, S M Mullan, C Morten, J Hockenhull, M R F Lee, L M Cardenas, M J Rivero

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

A S CookeDepartment of Sustainable Agriculture Sciences, Rothamsted Research, North Wyke, Okehampton, United Kingdom.
S M MullanUCD School of Veterinary Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
C MortenDepartment of Sustainable Agriculture Sciences, Rothamsted Research, North Wyke, Okehampton, United Kingdom.
J HockenhullBristol Veterinary School, University of Bristol, Bristol, United Kingdom.
M R F LeeHarper Adams University, Edgmond, United Kingdom.
L M CardenasDepartment of Sustainable Agriculture Sciences, Rothamsted Research, North Wyke, Okehampton, United Kingdom.
M J RiveroDepartment of Sustainable Agriculture Sciences, Rothamsted Research, North Wyke, Okehampton, United Kingdom.

Funding

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/C/000I0320Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council BBS/E/C/000J0100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal welfare is an inextricable part of livestock production and sustainability. Assessing welfare, beyond physical indicators of health, is challenging and often relies on qualitative techniques. Behaviour is a key component of welfare to consider and Qualitative Behaviour Assessment (QBA) aims to achieve this by systematically scoring behaviour across specific terms. In recent years, numerous studies have conducted QBA by using video footage, however, the method was not originally developed using video and video QBA (V-QBA) requires validation. Forty live QBAs were conducted, by two assessors, on housed beef cattle to help fill this validation gap. Video was recorded over the assessment period and a second video assessment was conducted. Live and video scores for each term were compared for both correlation and significant difference. Principle component analysis (PCA) was then conducted and correlations and differences between QBA and V-QBA for the first two components were calculated. Of the 20 terms, three were removed due to an overwhelming majority of scores of zero. Of the remaining 17 terms, 12 correlated significantly, and a significant pairwise difference was found for one ("Bored"). QBA and V-QBA results correlated across both PC1 (defined as "arousal") and PC2 (defined as "mood"). Whilst there was no significant difference between the techniques for PC1, there was for PC2, with V-QBA generally yielding lower scores than QBA. Furthermore, based on PC1 and PC2, corresponding QBA and V-QBA scores were significantly closer than would be expected at random. Results found broad agreement between QBA and V-QBA at both univariate and multivariate levels. However, the lack of absolute agreement and muted V-QBA results for PC2 mean that caution should be taken when implementing V-QBA and that it should ideally be treated independently from live QBA until further evidence is published. Future research should focus on a greater variety of animals, environments, and assessors to address further validation of the method.

Indexed as

agricultureanimal behaviouranimal welfarecattlelivestockQBAqualitative behaviour analysiszoology

Identifiers

PMID35372536
PMCPMC8966882

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.