ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2023
Opportunities for Regulatory Authorities to Assess Animal-Based Measures at the Slaughterhouse Using Sensor Technology and Artificial Intelligence: A Review.
Review 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 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Catch damage in broiler chickens: a systematic review of injury assessment methods and their limitations.Poultry science · 2026Review
- Validation of an automated system for at-slaughter assessment of footpad dermatitis and hock burn in broiler chickens.Poultry science · 2026Article
- Meat-Borne Bacterial Pathogen Detection: Conventional, Molecular and Emerging AI-Based Strategies.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Modernizing Livestock Operations: Smart Feedlot Technologies and Their Impact.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Review
- Review
- A Comparison of Artificial Intelligence and Human Observation in the Assessment of Cattle Handling and Slaughter.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Animal-based measures (ABMs) are the preferred way to assess animal welfare. However, manual scoring of ABMs is very time-consuming during the meat inspection. Automatic scoring by using sensor technology and artificial intelligence (AI) may bring a solution. Based on review papers an overview was made of ABMs recorded at the slaughterhouse for poultry, pigs and cattle and applications of sensor technology to measure the identified ABMs. Also, relevant legislation and work instructions of the Dutch Regulatory Authority (RA) were scanned on applied ABMs. Applications of sensor technology in a research setting, on farm or at the slaughterhouse were reported for 10 of the 37 ABMs identified for poultry, 4 of 32 for cattle and 13 of 41 for pigs. Several applications are related to aspects of meat inspection. However, by European law meat inspection must be performed by an official veterinarian, although there are exceptions for the post mortem inspection of poultry. The examples in this study show that there are opportunities for using sensor technology by the RA to support the inspection and to give more insight into animal welfare risks. The lack of external validation for multiple commercially available systems is a point of attention.
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.