ArticleJournal of animal science2025
Computer vision analysis of luteal color Doppler ultrasonography for early and automated pregnancy diagnosis in Bos taurus beef cows.
Article in Journal of animal science, 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.
- A Narrative Review of Early Pregnancy Diagnosis Technologies for Livestock: From Conventional to Intelligent Systems.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Present and future opportunities for artificial intelligence applications in dairy cattle reproduction.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study evaluated the suitability of applying supervised deep learning (DL) algorithms for early and real-time pregnancy diagnosis in beef cattle using luteal color Doppler (CD) ultrasonography recorded on days 20 (D20) and 22 (D22) after fixed-time artificial insemination (FTAI). CD ultrasound videos from 390 females were manually evaluated by trained personnel to perform the human-based pregnancy diagnosis (Human). Images were extracted at a rate of 5 frames per second from each video, resulting in 10,533 (D20) and 10,413 (D22) valid frames after applying a frame-filtering pipeline. Three convolutional neural network (CNN) architectures-VGG19, Xception, and ResNet50-along with their averaged inference (Combined), were evaluated using restricted 5-fold cross-validation, ensuring that images from the same animal did not appear in both training and validation sets. Final inferences for each animal were determined by averaging the network outputs across all video frames. Pregnancy status was confirmed on day 29 using conventional ultrasonography and treated as ground truth for assessing both Human and DL-based predictions. Accuracy levels were similar across methods, ranging from 0.84 (VGG19) to 0.87 (Human) for D20 and from 0.86 (VGG19) to 0.93 (Human) for D22. Based on Matthew's correlation coefficient, the Combined and Xception architectures demonstrated the best overall agreement with true pregnancy status among DL models. These architectures performed comparably to human diagnosis, with the Combined model achieving similar F1 scores (0.89 vs 0.91), higher specificity (0.72 vs 0.65), and slightly lower sensitivity (0.95 vs 1.00) on D20. Xception showed similar performance to human diagnosis on D22, with comparable accuracy (0.91 vs 0.93), specificity (0.79 vs 0.81), sensitivity (0.99 vs 1.00), and F1 score (0.93 vs 0.94). In conclusion, DL algorithms can effectively predict pregnancy status using CD ultrasonography earlier than industry-standard methods, with performance comparable to that of trained personnel.
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.