ArticleJournal of animal science2022
Improved pig behavior analysis by optimizing window sizes for individual behaviors on acceleration and angular velocity data.
Article in Journal of animal 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.
- Artificial intelligence in animal breeding and genetics: applications, opportunities, and challenges.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2026Article
- Recognising dog movement with behaviour-specific machine learning models: bout length as a biologically relevant parameter for window size.BMC veterinary research · 2026Article
- SATSN: A Spatial-Adaptive Two-Stream Network for Automatic Detection of Giraffe Daily Behaviors.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- AnimalMotionViz: An interactive software tool for tracking and visualizing animal motion patterns using computer vision.JDS communications · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper presents the application of machine learning algorithms to identify pigs' behaviors from data collected using the wireless sensor nodes mounted on pigs. The sensor node attached to a pig's back senses the acceleration and angular velocity in three axes, and the sensed data are transmitted to a host computer wirelessly. Two video cameras, one attached to the ceiling of the pigpen and the other one to a fence, provided ground truth for data annotations. The data were collected from pigs for 131 h over 2 mo. As the typical behavior period depends on the behavior type, we segmented the acceleration data with different window sizes (WS) and step sizes (SS), and tested how the classification performance of different activities varied with different WS and SS. After exploring the possible combinations, we selected the optimum WS and SS. To compare performance, we used five machine learning algorithms, specifically support vector machine, k-nearest neighbors, decision trees, naive Bayes, and random forest (RF). Among the five algorithms, RF achieved the highest F1 score for four major behaviors consisting of 92.36% in total. The F1 scores of the algorithm were 0.98 for "eating," 0.99 for "lying," 0.93 for "walking," and 0.91 for "standing" behaviors. The optimal WS was 7 s for "eating" and "lying," and 3 s for "walking" and "standing." The proposed work demonstrates that, based on the length of behavior, the adaptive window and step sizes increase the classification performance.
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.