Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39943450›Full record

ArticleSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Monitoring Welfare of Individual Broiler Chickens Using Ultra-Wideband and Inertial Measurement Unit Wearables.

Imad Khan, Daniel Peralta, Jaron Fontaine, Patricia Soster de Carvalho, Ana Martos Martinez-Caja, Gunther Antonissen, Frank Tuyttens, Eli De Poorter

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. 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

8 authors.

Imad KhanDepartment of Pathobiology, Pharmacology and Zoological Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-3355-884X
Daniel PeraltaDepartment of Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, University of Granada, 18071 Granada, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-7544-8411
Jaron FontaineIDLab, Department of Information Technology, Ghent University-imec, 9052 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-5942-9440
Patricia Soster de CarvalhoDepartment of Pathobiology, Pharmacology and Zoological Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.
Ana Martos Martinez-CajaDepartment of Pathobiology, Pharmacology and Zoological Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.
Gunther AntonissenDepartment of Pathobiology, Pharmacology and Zoological Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0001-8832-1498
Frank TuyttensDepartment of Veterinary and Biosciences, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, 9820 Merelbeke, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-1348-218X
Eli De PoorterIDLab, Department of Information Technology, Ghent University-imec, 9052 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-0214-5751

Funding

Agentschap Innoveren en Ondernemen (VLAIO) HBC.2021.0664
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Monitoring animal welfare on farms and in research settings is attracting increasing interest, both for ethical reasons and for improving productivity through the early detection of stress or diseases. In contrast to video-based monitoring, which requires good light conditions and has difficulty tracking specific animals, recent advances in the miniaturization of wearable devices allow for the collection of acceleration and location data to track individual animal behavior. However, for broilers, there are several challenges to address when using wearables, such as coping with (i) the large numbers of chickens in commercial farms,(ii)the impact of their rapid growth, and (iii) the small weights that the devices must have to be carried by the chickens without any impact on their health or behavior. To this end, this paper describes a pilot study in which chickens were fitted with devices containing an Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) and an Ultra-Wideband (UWB) sensor. To establish guidelines for practitioners who want to monitor broiler welfare and activity at different scales, we first compare the attachment methods of the wearables to the broiler chickens, taking into account their effectiveness (in terms of retention time) and their impact on the broiler's welfare. Then, we establish the technical requirements to carry out such a study, and the challenges that may arise. This analysis involves aspects such as noise estimation, synergy between UWB and IMU, and the measurement of activity levels based on the monitoring of chicken activity. We show that IMU data can be used for detecting activity level differences between individual animals and environmental conditions. UWB data can be used to monitor the positions and movement patterns of up to 200 animals simultaneously with an accuracy of less than 20 cm. We also show that the accuracy depends on installation aspects and that errors are larger at the borders of the monitored area. Attachment with sutures had the longest mean retention of 19.5 days, whereas eyelash glue had the shortest mean retention of 3 days. To conclude the paper, we identify current challenges and future research lines in the field.

Indexed as

Animal WelfareChickensWearable Electronic DevicesAnimalsBehavior, AnimalMonitoring, Physiologicaccelerometeranimal welfarebroilerschickensIMUUWBwearable

Identifiers

PMID39943450
PMCPMC11820151

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.