ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2024
Investigating the use of machine learning algorithms to support risk-based animal welfare inspections of cattle and pig farms.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biosecurity deficiencies in HPAI-affected poultry farms in Korea, 2020/2021-2024/2025 seasons.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Host-Microbe Interactions: Prospects of Machine Learning and Deep Learning Technologies in Animal Viral Disease Management.Veterinary sciences · 2025Review
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
In livestock production, animal-related data are often registered in specialised databases and are usually not interconnected, except for a common identifier. Analysis of combined datasets and the possible inclusion of third-party information can provide a more complete picture or reveal complex relationships. The aim of this study was to develop a risk index to predict farms with an increased likelihood for animal welfare violations, defined as non-compliance during on-farm welfare inspections. A data-driven approach was chosen for this purpose, focusing on the combination of existing Swiss government databases and registers. Individual animal-level data were aggregated at the herd level. Since data collection and availability were best for cattle and pigs, the focus was on these two livestock species. We present machine learning models that can be used as a tool to plan and optimise risk-based on-farm welfare inspections by proposing a consolidated list of priority holdings to be visited. The results of previous on-farm welfare inspections were used to calibrate a binary welfare index, which is the prediction goal. The risk index is based on proxy information, such as the participation in animal welfare programmes with structured housing and outdoor access, herd type and size, or animal movement data. Since transparency of the model is critical both for public acceptance of such a data-driven index and farm control planning, the Random Forest model, for which the decision process can be illustrated, was investigated in depth. Using historical inspection data with an overall low prevalence of violations of approximately 4% for both species, the developed index was able to predict violations with a sensitivity of 81.2 and 79.5% for cattle and pig farms, respectively. The study has shown that combining multiple and heterogeneous data sources improves the quality of the models. Furthermore, privacy-preserving methods are applied to a research environment to explore the available data before restricting the feature space to the most relevant. This study demonstrates that data-driven monitoring of livestock populations is already possible with the existing datasets and the models developed can be a useful tool to plan and conduct risk-based animal welfare inspection.
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.