ArticlePloS one2024
Comparison of physiological markers, behavior monitoring, and clinical illness scoring as indicators of an inflammatory response in beef cattle.
Article in PloS one, 2024. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Multivariate hematological and biochemical profiling reveals conserved physiological modules in Brahman- and Charolais-crossbred beef cattle under tropical smallholder systems.Veterinary world · 2026Article
- Increased ruminoreticular temperature after simultaneous lumpy skin disease and foot-and-mouth disease vaccination in Hanwoo (Journal of veterinary science · 2026Article
- Development of a Novel Classification Approach for Cow Behavior Analysis Using Tracking Data and Unsupervised Machine Learning Techniques.Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Connecting the dots: relationship between heart rate and overall dynamic body acceleration in free-ranging cattle.Conservation physiology · 2024Article
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
Clinical illness (CI) scoring using visual observation is the most widely applied method of detecting respiratory disease in cattle but has limited effectiveness in practice. In contrast, body-mounted sensor technology effectively facilitates disease detection. To evaluate whether a combination of movement behavior and CI scoring is effective for disease detection, cattle were vaccinated to induce a temporary inflammatory immune response. Cattle were evaluated before and after vaccination to identify the CI variables that are most indicative of sick cattle. Respiratory rate (H2 = 43.08, P < 0.0001), nasal discharge (H2 = 8.35, P = 0.015), and ocular discharge (H2 = 16.38, P = 0.0003) increased after vaccination, and rumen fill decreased (H2 = 20.10, P < 0.0001). Locomotor activity was measured via leg-mounted sensors for the four days preceding and seven days following vaccination. A statistical model that included temperature, steps, lying time, respiratory rate, rumen fill, head position, and excess saliva was developed to distinguish between scores from before and after vaccination with a sensitivity of 0.898 and specificity of 0.915. Several clinical illness signs were difficult to measure in practice. Binoculars were required for scoring respiratory rate and eye-related metrics, and cattle had to be fitted with colored collars for individual identification. Scoring each animal took up to three minutes in a small research pen; therefore, technologies that can automate both behavior monitoring and identification of clinical illness signs are key to improving capacity for BRD detection and treatment.
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.