ArticleJDS communications2026
Comparison of manual gold standard with 2 automatic body condition scoring systems for dairy cows.
Article in JDS communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- UGT-YOLO: A Multi-Strategy Fusion Model for Automated Dairy Cow Body Condition Scoring.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assessed the agreement between manual and automatic body condition scoring systems, with a focus on evaluating 2 automated scoring systems by DeLaval (older and newer) for commercial dairy farms. Manual scoring was conducted by experienced assessors using a standardized protocol, and results were compared with data from automated systems. Manual scores showed strong consistency between assessors, supporting the reliability of the method when properly applied. Both automated systems correlated well with manual scores. However, the older system consistently overestimated scores, particularly in thinner cows, whereas the newer system demonstrated closer alignment with manual assessments under the present conditions, though it slightly underestimated early-lactation body condition loss. Despite some limitations in individual cow assessment, especially during early lactation, the newer system represents a potential advancement and both systems are suitable for group-level management. Further refinement is recommended to enhance its precision for individual animal-level monitoring and research applications.
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.