ArticleVeterinary research2025
Scoring of swine lung images: a comparison between a computer vision system and human evaluators.
Article in Veterinary research, 2025. 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.
- Field Trial Demonstrates Superiority of a Live Attenuated Vaccine for Integrated Control ofAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Cross-species AI: shifting a convolutional neural network from pigs to lambs to detect pneumonia at slaughter.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cranioventral pulmonary consolidation (CVPC) is a common lesion observed in the lungs of slaughtered pigs, often associated with Mycoplasma (M.) hyopneumoniae infection. There is a need to implement simple, fast, and valid CVPC scoring methods. Therefore, this study aimed to compare CVPC scores provided by a computer vision system (CVS; AI DIAGNOS) from lung images obtained at slaughter, with scores assigned by human evaluators. In addition, intra- and inter-evaluator variability were assessed and compared to intra-CVS variability. A total of 1050 dorsal view images of swine lungs were analyzed. Total lung lesion score, lesion score per lung lobe, and percentage of affected lung area were employed as outcomes for the evaluation. The CVS showed moderate accuracy (62-71%) in discriminating between non-lesioned and lesioned lung lobes in all but the diaphragmatic lobes. A low multiclass classification accuracy at the lung lobe level (24-36%) was observed. A moderate to high inter-evaluator variability was noticed depending on the lung lobe, as shown by the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC: 0.29-0.6). The intra-evaluator variability was low and similar among the different outcomes and lung lobes, although the observed ICC slightly differed among evaluators. In contrast, the CVS scoring was identical per lobe per image. The results of this study suggest that the CVS AI DIAGNOS could be used as an alternative to the manual scoring of CVPC during slaughter inspections due to its accuracy in binary classification and its perfect consistency in the scoring.
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.