Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40362140›Full record

ArticleAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2025

A Comparison of Artificial Intelligence and Human Observation in the Assessment of Cattle Handling and Slaughter.

Lily Edwards-Callaway, Huey Yi Loh, Carina Kautsky, Paxton Sullivan

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

4 authors.

Lily Edwards-CallawayDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0737-9899
Huey Yi LohDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.ORCID 0009-0009-5603-8343
Carina KautskyDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.
Paxton SullivanDepartment of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7715-2828

Funding

Lumachain no numberOSI no number
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Slaughter facilities use a variety of tools to evaluate animal handling, including but not limited to live audits, the use of remote video auditing, and some AI technologies. The objective of this study was to determine the similarity between AI and human evaluator assessments of critical cattle handling outcomes in a slaughter plant. One hundred twelve video clips of cattle handling and stunning from a slaughter plant in the United Kingdom were collected. The AI identified the presence or absence of: Stunning, Electric Prod Usage, Falling, Pen Crowding, and Questionable Handling Events. Three human evaluators scored the videos for these outcomes. Four different datasets were generated, and Jaccard similarity indices were generated. There was high similarity (JI > 0.90) for Stunning, Electric Prod Usage, and Falls between the evaluators and the AI. There was high consistency (JI > 0.80) for Pen Crowding. There were differences (JI ≥ 0.50) between the humans and the AI when identifying Questionable Animal Handling Events but the AI was adept at identifying events for further review. The implementation of AI to assist with cattle handling in a slaughter facility environment could be an added tool to enhance animal welfare programs.

Indexed as

AIanimal handlerelectric prodfallstunning efficiency

Identifiers

PMID40362140
PMCPMC12071094

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.