Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39358453›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2024

The potential of decision trees as a tool to simplify broiler chicken welfare assessments.

Xavier Averós, Jose Luís Lavín, Inma Estevez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Xavier AverósDepartment of Animal Production, NEIKER-Basque Institute for Agricultural Research and Development, Basque Research and Technology Alliance (BRTA), N-104, km. 355, 01192, Arkaute, Spain. xaveros@neiker.eus.
Jose Luís LavínDepartment of Applied Mathematics, NEIKER-Basque Institute for Agricultural Research and Development, Basque Research and Technology Alliance (BRTA), Bizkaia Science and Technology Park 812L, 48160, Derio, Spain.
Inma EstevezDepartment of Animal Production, NEIKER-Basque Institute for Agricultural Research and Development, Basque Research and Technology Alliance (BRTA), N-104, km. 355, 01192, Arkaute, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To simplify fast-growth broiler welfare assessments and use them as a benchmarking tool, decision trees were used to identify iceberg indicators discriminating flocks passing/failing welfare assessments as with the complete AWIN protocol. A dataset was constructed with data from 57 flocks and 3 previous projects. A final flock assessment score, previously not included in the dataset, was calculated and used as the benchmarking assessment classifier (pass/fail). A decision tree to classify flocks was built using the Chi-square Automatic Interaction Detection (CHAID) criterion. Cost-complexity pruning, and tenfold cross-validation were used. The final decision tree included cumulative mortality (%), immobile, lame birds (%), and birds with back wounds (%). Values were (mean ± se) 2.77 ± 0.14%, 0.16 ± 0.02%, 0.25 ± 0.02%, and 0.003 ± 0.001% for flocks passing the assessment; and 4.39 ± 0.49%, 0.24 ± 0.05%, 0.49 ± 0.09%, and 0.015 ± 0.006% for flocks failing. Cumulative mortality had the highest relative importance. The validated model correctly predicted 80.70% of benchmarking assessment outcomes. Model specificity was 0.8696; sensitivity was 0.5455. Decision trees can be useful to simplify welfare assessments. Model improvements will be possible as more information becomes available, and predictions are based on more samples.

Indexed as

Animal WelfareChickensDecision TreesAnimal HusbandryAnimals

Identifiers

PMID39358453
PMCPMC11447258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.