ArticleVeterinary research communications2025
Varying image assessment of pecking injuries in Turkeys while performing repetitions.
Article in Veterinary research communications, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated variations in assessing potential pecking injuries in turkey hens when annotating image excerpts. Three observers (OBS1, OBS2, OBS3) with different levels of previous knowledge - one with experience in pecking injuries in turkeys and two computer science students - rated a total of 24,912 image excerpts. The image excerpts were evaluated in work packages (2,076 images each) and were classified by the observers as either head injury (HI), skin injury in the feathered area of the body (SI), or no injury (NI). Two observers evaluated three packages (OBS1, OBS2: 6,228 image excerpts each) and OBS3 annnotated six work packages (12,456 excerpts). The percentage of the classifications in the chronological sequence of the observations was analyzed. Inexperienced observers (OBS2 and OBS3) both classified an average of 13% of the shown images as HI, 70% as SI, and 17% as NI. On average, OBS1 classified 12% of the images as HI, 60% as SI, and 28% as NI. Throughout the study, all observers classified more recordings into the NI class. Particularly, OBS1 with the most experience in evaluating pecking injuries showed a different assessment by rating more images (plus 5%) as showing NI over time (OBS2: plus 0.7%; OBS3: plus 2.2%). This result raises questions about whether divergent assessments always occur in repeated judgments and how this effect can be avoided.
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.