ArticleScientific reports2024
The potential of decision trees as a tool to simplify broiler chicken welfare assessments.
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.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.