ArticleVeterinary medicine and science2025
Identification of Cattle Using Nasolabial Plate Imprints and Biometric Analysis.
Article in Veterinary medicine and 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.
- Use of animal biometrics for accurate hunting evidence of wild ungulates: red deer as a model species.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Article
- Identification of Cattle Using Nasolabial Plate Imprints and Biometric Analysis.Veterinary medicine and science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAnimal identification is a topic of many studies, with a range of biometric methods currently in use. The cattle muzzle serves as a unique source of biometric traits.
objectivesThe aim of this study was to determine the best method for muzzle visualisation using imprints, the most frequent forms and minutiae points on imprints, and the minimum number of minutiae points required to establish an identity profile.
methodsNoseprints of 30 calves were taken on different surfaces and visualised using different methods (white paper and cardboard/ninhydrin solution and glass tile/small particle reagents and ceramic tile/fluorescent powder and glossy photopaper/grey instant or magnetic powder). The imprint of the entire muzzle was photographed and analysed using the Automated Fingerprint Identification System (AFIS) to detect the most frequent forms based on friction ridges and minutiae points. Further mathematical simulation revealed the minimal number of points required for animal identification.
resultsThe best imprint was obtained on glossy black photopaper with grey instant powder. After analysing the digitised images with the AFIS magnifier, the six forms of beads and ridges in the selected 12 minutiae points were detected, thus creating an identity chart. Computer simulation confirmed that the lowest number of minutiae points necessary for unique animal identification, and 0% possibility of form repetition at points, was nine of the 12 selected points.
conclusionAs a biometric method, the muzzle imprint in combination with AFIS has the potential to be stored on large scale and used internationally, enabling identity control that is not susceptible to the issues involved with other biometric methods.
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.