Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36611643›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2022

Measuring Comfort Behaviours in Laying Hens Using Deep-Learning Tools.

Marco Sozzi, Giulio Pillan, Claudia Ciarelli, Francesco Marinello, Fabrizio Pirrone, Francesco Bordignon, Alessandro Bordignon, Gerolamo Xiccato, Angela Trocino

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 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. Review
  2. Artificial intelligence in precision poultry farming: opportunities, challenges, and future features.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  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

9 authors.

Marco SozziDepartment of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry (TeSAF), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8941-1903
Giulio PillanDepartment of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science (BCA), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Padova, Italy.
Claudia CiarelliDepartment of Agronomy, Food, Natural resources, Animal and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Padova, Italy.
Francesco MarinelloDepartment of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry (TeSAF), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3283-5665
Fabrizio PirroneDepartment of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science (BCA), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4183-9043
Francesco BordignonDepartment of Agronomy, Food, Natural resources, Animal and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Padova, Italy.
Alessandro BordignonDepartment of Agronomy, Food, Natural resources, Animal and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Padova, Italy.
Gerolamo XiccatoDepartment of Agronomy, Food, Natural resources, Animal and Environment (DAFNAE), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-4572-3635
Angela TrocinoDepartment of Comparative Biomedicine and Food Science (BCA), University of Padova, Viale dell'Università 16, 35020 Padova, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-9045-6156

Funding

Uni-Impresa C22F20000020005Università di Padova C24I20000260005
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Image analysis using machine learning (ML) algorithms could provide a measure of animal welfare by measuring comfort behaviours and undesired behaviours. Using a PLF technique based on images, the present study aimed to test a machine learning tool for measuring the number of hens on the ground and identifying the number of dust-bathing hens in an experimental aviary. In addition, two YOLO (You Only Look Once) models were compared. YOLOv4-tiny needed about 4.26 h to train for 6000 epochs, compared to about 23.2 h for the full models of YOLOv4. In validation, the performance of the two models in terms of precision, recall, harmonic mean of precision and recall, and mean average precision (mAP) did not differ, while the value of frame per second was lower in YOLOv4 compared to the tiny version (31.35 vs. 208.5). The mAP stands at about 94% for the classification of hens on the floor, while the classification of dust-bathing hens was poor (28.2% in the YOLOv4-tiny compared to 31.6% in YOLOv4). In conclusion, ML successfully identified laying hens on the floor, whereas other PLF tools must be tested for the classification of dust-bathing hens.

Indexed as

cage-free systemsdust bathingimage analysesmachine learningYOLO

Identifiers

PMID36611643
PMCPMC9817561

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.