Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35456148›Full record

ArticlePathogens (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Predictive Models for Weekly Cattle Mortality after Arrival at a Feeding Location Using Records, Weather, and Transport Data at Time of Purchase.

Lauren Wisnieski, David E Amrine, David G Renter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

3 authors.

Lauren WisnieskiCenter for Animal and Human Health in Appalachia, College of Veterinary Medicine, Lincoln Memorial University, Harrogate, TN 37752, USA.
David E AmrineCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66502, USA.
David G RenterCenter for Outcomes Research and Epidemiology, College of Veterinary Medicine, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66502, USA.

Funding

United States Department of Agriculture 2015-67015-23079
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feedlot mortality negatively affects animal welfare and profitability. To the best of our knowledge, there are no publications on predictive models for weekly all-cause mortality in feedlot cattle. In this study, random forest models to predict weekly mortality for cattle purchase groups (n = 14,217 purchase groups; 860,545 animals) from arrival at the feeding location (Day 1) to Day 42 and cumulative mortality from Day 43 until slaughter were built using records, weather, and transport data available at the time of purchase. Models were evaluated by calculating the root mean squared error (RMSE) and accuracy (as defined as the percent of purchase groups that had predictions within 0.25% and 0.50% of actual mortality). The models had high accuracy (>90%), but the RMSE estimates were high (range = 1.0% to 4.1%). The best predictors were maximum temperature and purchase weight, although this varied by week. The models performed well among purchase groups with low weekly mortality but performed poorly in high mortality purchase groups. Although high mortality purchase groups were not accurately predicted utilizing the models in this study, the models may potentially have utility as a screening tool for very low mortality purchase groups after arrival. Future studies should consider building iterative models that utilize the strongest predictors identified in this study.

Indexed as

beef cattlefeedlot healthmortalitypredictive modelingrandom forests

Identifiers

PMID35456148
PMCPMC9024862

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.