ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2022
Footpad Monitoring: Reliability of an Automated System to Assess Footpad Dermatitis in Turkeys (
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of an automated system for at-slaughter assessment of footpad dermatitis and hock burn in broiler chickens.Poultry science · 2026Article
- Welfare assessment of turkeys (EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2026Article
- Welfare of beef cattle.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2025Article
- Welfare of calves.EFSA journal. European Food Safety Authority · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.