ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2025
Optimising the selection of welfare indicators in farm animals.
Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Risk assessment (RA) frameworks are increasingly being applied to improve the welfare of farmed animals. These frameworks have at their core, a logic chain linking welfare hazards (risks) with one or more welfare consequences which, in turn, are each measured by one or more welfare indicators. Effective and efficient monitoring of animal welfare often involves the selection of a subset of indicators from a large pool. Selecting 'iceberg indicators' could be advantageous due to their association with multiple welfare consequences. However, no standardised, data-driven method exists to select optimal combinations under practical constraints. This study addresses this gap by creating an algorithmic approach to optimise indicator selection. Methods: The work was conducted in six phases: (1) construction of a structured database of welfare indicators; (2) a proof-of-concept study; (3) design of a greedy selection algorithm; (4) enhancement of the algorithm using branch-and-bound and backtracking methods; (5) performance and sensitivity testing, and (6) creation of two case studies. A dataset of 382 animal welfare indicators across seven farm species was compiled from scientific opinions published by the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and from other published literature. The EFSA scientific opinions contain data acquired through a rigorous process of literature reviews and expert elicitation and consensus panels to link welfare indicators with their associated welfare hazards and welfare consequences. To enable algorithm development, the Results: The greedy algorithm offered computational efficiency but incorporated suboptimal plateaus in Discussion: The enhanced algorithm was able to move beyond the selection of iceberg indicators, by incorporating multiple selection criteria to inform welfare indicator choice. The enhanced algorithm is data-agnostic and enables users to optimise indicator selection with diverse datasets spanning research, industry, and policy contexts. Its flexibility supports the development of tailored applications for different stakeholders. Future work should explore processes to determine weighting values, scenario testing, robustness, and stakeholder engagement to maximise both relevance and practicality.
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.