ArticlePoultry science2024
Research Note: A validation of an image-based method to estimate chicken comb size.
Article in Poultry science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Chicken combs carry important information about the individual, especially the size has been related to sexual reproduction, health, and social signaling. Comb size is usually estimated by weighing removed combs or by calculating the product of the comb's longest and highest dimensions (LHA) to approximate comb area based on measures of a ruler or caliper. These methods have several shortcomings including invasiveness or imprecision. As a result, more recent efforts have employed pixel-based approximations of comb area (PBA) from images. However, the validity of PBA to estimate comb area and how the approximation compares to previous approximation methods, such as LHA, is unknown. Therefore, we developed an apparatus for taking standardized images of the head position of the hens and then applied PBA using the software ImageJ. The hens were each photographed 3 times by 2 different handlers. We first tested the accuracy of the pixel-based area approximation on 3 geometric shapes of known area. Second, we tested the precision of PBA of 15 hens (Dekalb White), evaluated as within-image and within-individual hen precision. Furthermore, we compared the PBA with the LHA based on measures of a caliper. The PBA was both accurate and precise, whereas the LHA overestimated comb area with increasing overestimation for larger combs. Due to the greater accuracy of the PBA, as well as future possibilities of automation and inclusion of further measures, we suggest PBA as a more reliable approach to estimate comb area than LHA. Additionally, our results demonstrate that the outcomes of LHA should be evaluated on an ordinal scale level only.
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.