Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36670787›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023

Evaluation of Precision Livestock Technology and Human Scoring of Nursery Pigs in a Controlled Immune Challenge Experiment.

Eduarda M Bortoluzzi, Mikayla J Goering, Sara J Ochoa, Aaron J Holliday, Jared M Mumm, Catherine E Nelson, Hui Wu, Benny E Mote, Eric T Psota, Ty B Schmidt and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Continuous NUTranslational animal science · 2026
    Article
  2. Review
  3. A new future for dog breeding.Animal welfare (South Mimms, England) · 2025
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Utilizing NUAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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

12 authors.

Eduarda M BortoluzziDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3558-9890
Mikayla J GoeringDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.
Sara J OchoaDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.
Aaron J HollidayDepartment of Animal Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68505, USA.
Jared M MummDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.
Catherine E NelsonDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.
Hui WuDepartment of Statistics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9675-6280
Benny E MoteDepartment of Animal Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68505, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2234-8844
Eric T PsotaDepartment of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68588, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7836-298X
Ty B SchmidtDepartment of Animal Science, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68505, USA.
Majid Jaberi-DourakiDepartment of Statistics, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8505-6550
Lindsey E HulbertDepartment of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506, USA.

Funding

Hatch projects of the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (Washington, DC, USA) 1013670 and 1013671the Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station (Manhattan, KS, USA) no. 21-002-Jthe National Pork Foundation's Board 19-122the USDA NIFA for the Food Animal Residue Avoidance Databank (FARAD) Program 2020-41480-32497, 2021-41480-35271, and 2022-41480-38135
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objectives were to determine the sensitivity, specificity, and cutoff values of a visual-based precision livestock technology (NUtrack), and determine the sensitivity and specificity of sickness score data collected with the live observation by trained human observers. At weaning, pigs (n = 192; gilts and barrows) were randomly assigned to one of twelve pens (16/pen) and treatments were randomly assigned to pens. Sham-pen pigs all received subcutaneous saline (3 mL). For LPS-pen pigs, all pigs received subcutaneous lipopolysaccharide (LPS; 300 μg/kg BW; E. coli O111:B4; in 3 mL of saline). For the last treatment, eight pigs were randomly assigned to receive LPS, and the other eight were sham (same methods as above; half-and-half pens). Human data from the day of the challenge presented high true positive and low false positive rates (88.5% sensitivity; 85.4% specificity; 0.871 Area Under Curve, AUC), however, these values declined when half-and-half pigs were scored (75% sensitivity; 65.5% specificity; 0.703 AUC). Precision technology measures had excellent AUC, sensitivity, and specificity for the first 72 h after treatment and AUC values were >0.970, regardless of pen treatment. These results indicate that precision technology has a greater potential for identifying pigs during a natural infectious disease event than trained professionals using timepoint sampling.

Indexed as

ethologymachine learningSuidae domesticus

Identifiers

PMID36670787
PMCPMC9854951

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.