ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025
Multi-Sensor Integration and Machine Learning for High-Resolution Classification of Herbivore Foraging Behavior.
Article in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Cattle Behavior Recognition Method Based on Graph Neural Network Compression on the Edge.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study classified cows' foraging behaviors using machine learning (ML) models evaluated through random test split (RTS) and cross-validation (CV) data partition methods. Models included Perceptron, Logistic Regression, Support Vector Machine, K-Nearest Neighbors, Random Forest (RF), and XGBoost (XGB). These models classified activity states (active vs. static), foraging behaviors (grazing (GR), resting (RE), walking (W), ruminating (RU)), posture states (standing up (SU) vs. lying down (LD)), and posture combinations with rumination and resting behaviors (RU_SU, RU_LD, RE_SU, and RE_LD). XGB achieved the highest accuracy for state classification (74.5% RTS, 74.2% CV) and foraging behavior (69.4% CV). RF outperformed XGB in other classifications, including GR, RE, and RU (62.9% CV vs. 56.4% RTS), posture (83.9% CV vs. 79.4% RTS), and behaviors-by-posture (58.8% CV vs. 56.4% RTS). Key predictors varied: speed and Actindex were crucial for GR and W when increasing and for RE and RU when decreasing. X low values were linked to RE_SU and RU_SU, while X and Z influenced RE_LD more. RTS showed higher accuracy in activity states classification while CV in foraging behaviors and by posture classification. These results emphasize CV in RF's reliability in managing complex behavioral patterns and the importance of continuous recording devices and movement data to monitor cattle behavior accurately.
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.