Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35664852›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2022

Footpad Monitoring: Reliability of an Automated System to Assess Footpad Dermatitis in Turkeys (

Jenny Stracke, Robby Andersson, Nina Volkmann, Birgit Spindler, Jan Schulte-Landwehr, Ronald Günther, Nicole Kemper

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 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Welfare assessment of turkeys (EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2026
    Article
  3. Welfare of beef cattle.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025
    Article
  4. Welfare of calves.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023
    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.

Jenny StrackeInstitute of Animal Science, Ethology, University of Bonn, Bonn, Germany.
Robby AnderssonFaculty of Agricultural Sciences and Landscape Architecture, University of Applied Sciences Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany.
Nina VolkmannInstitute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behavior, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Birgit SpindlerInstitute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behavior, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.
Jan Schulte-LandwehrCLK GmbH, Bildverarbeitung and Robotik, Altenberge, Germany.
Ronald GüntherHeidemark Mästerkreis GmbH u. Co. KG, Haldensleben, Germany.
Nicole KemperInstitute for Animal Hygiene, Animal Welfare and Farm Animal Behavior, University of Veterinary Medicine Hannover, Foundation, Hannover, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Footpad dermatitis (FPD) is an indicator of animal welfare in turkeys, giving evidence of the animals' physical integrity and providing information on husbandry management. Automated systems for assessing FPD at slaughter can present a useful tool for objective data collection. However, using automated systems requires that they reliably assess the incidence. In this study, the feet of turkeys were scored for FPD by both an automated camera system and a human observer, using a five-scale score. The observer reliability between both was calculated (Krippendorff's alpha). The results were not acceptable, with an agreement coefficient of 0.44 in the initial situation. Therefore, pictures of 3,000 feet scored by the automated system were evaluated systematically to detect deficiencies. The reference area (metatarsal footpad) was not detected correctly in 55.0% of the feet, and false detections of the alteration on the footpad (FPD) were found in 32.9% of the feet. In 41.3% of the feet, the foot was not presented straight to the camera. According to these results, the algorithm of the automated system was modified, aiming to improve color detection and the distinction of the metatarsal footpad from the background. Pictures of the feet, now scored by the modified algorithm, were evaluated again. Observer reliability could be improved (Krippendorff's alpha = 0.61). However, detection of the metatarsal footpad (50.9% incorrect detections) and alterations (27.0% incorrect detections) remained a problem. We found that the performance of the camera system was affected by the angle at which the foot was presented to the camera (skew/straight;

Indexed as

abattoiranimal welfareautomatic assessmentfootpad dermatitis (FPD)turkeyswelfare indicator

Identifiers

PMID35664852
PMCPMC9157434

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.