ArticlePloS one2024
Evaluating machine learning algorithms to predict lameness in dairy 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 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hooves, Sensors, and Signals: Precision Approaches to Automated Lameness Detection in Dairy Cattle.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Impact of claw lesions on dairy cow energy-corrected milk yield: Differential and persistent effects up to 120 days post-treatment.Veterinary and animal science · 2026Article
- - Invited Review - Application of precision livestock farming: challenges and opportunities.Animal bioscience · 2026Article
- Integrated approaches for lameness control in free-stall dairy systems under heat stress and water scarcity.Tropical animal health and production · 2026Review
- Milk Biomarkers and Herd Welfare Status in Dairy Cattle: A Machine Learning Approach.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Machine Learning Approaches for Early Identification of Subclinical Ketosis and Low-Grade Ruminal Acidosis During the Transition Period in Dairy Cattle.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Lameness detection in dairy cows from overhead view: high-precision keypoint localization and multi-feature fusion classification.Frontiers in veterinary science · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dairy cattle lameness represents one of the common concerns in intensive and commercial dairy farms. Lameness is characterized by gait-related behavioral changes in cows and multiple approaches are being utilized to associate these changes with lameness conditions including data from accelerometers, and other precision technologies. The objective was to evaluate the use of machine learning algorithms for the identification of lameness conditions in dairy cattle. In this study, 310 multiparous Holstein dairy cows from a herd in Northern Colorado were affixed with a leg-based accelerometer (Icerobotics® Inc, Edinburg, Scotland) to obtain the lying time (min/d), daily steps count (n/d), and daily change (n/d). Subsequently, study cows were monitored for 4 months and cows submitted for claw trimming (CT) were differentiated as receiving corrective claw trimming (CCT) or as being diagnosed with a lameness disorder and consequent therapeutic claw trimming (TCT) by a certified hoof trimmer. Cows not submitted to CT were considered healthy controls. A median filter was applied to smoothen the data by reducing inherent variability. Three different machine learning (ML) models were defined to fit each algorithm which included the conventional features (containing daily lying, daily steps, and daily change derived from the accelerometer), slope features (containing features extracted from each variable in Conventional feature), or all features (3 simple features and 3 slope features). Random forest (RF), Naive Bayes (NB), Logistic Regression (LR), and Time series (ROCKET) were used as ML predictive approaches. For the classification of cows requiring CCT and TCT, ROCKET classifier performed better with accuracy (> 90%), ROC-AUC (> 74%), and F1 score (> 0.61) as compared to other algorithms. Slope features derived in this study increased the efficiency of algorithms as the better-performing models included All features explored. However, further classification of diseases into infectious and non-infectious events was not effective because none of the algorithms presented satisfactory model accuracy parameters. For the classification of observed cow locomotion scores into severely lame and moderately lame conditions, the ROCKET classifier demonstrated satisfactory accuracy (> 0.85), ROC-AUC (> 0.68), and F1 scores (> 0.44). We conclude that ML models using accelerometer data are helpful in the identification of lameness in cows but need further research to increase the granularity and accuracy of classification.
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.