ArticleScientific reports2026
Cattle lameness detection using depth image and deep learning.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. 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.
- Hooves, Sensors, and Signals: Precision Approaches to Automated Lameness Detection in Dairy Cattle.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Review
- Robust multi-class lumpy skin disease diagnosis for practical livestock applications.Scientific reports · 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
Abstract
Lameness in cattle is a significant welfare and economic concern. To address this, we developed an end-to-end deep learning framework for 24/7 lameness monitoring using top-down depth images of cattle. The framework integrates three key stages: instance segmentation for detection, a custom multi-object tracking algorithm for identity preservation, and a spatio-temporal model for classification. We compared multiple instance segmentation models (Mask R-CNN, YOLOv8m-seg, YOLOv11m-seg) and evaluated three proposed tracking algorithms version1, 2 and 3 (PTAV1, PTAV2, and PTAV3). For classification, we tested multiple configurations integrating various pre-processing conditions (no filter, Gaussian, median), seven EfficientNet backbones (B1-B7), two temporal sequence lengths (5 and 7 frames), and a Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network to assign a lameness score from 1 (healthy) to 4 (lame) based on expert ground truth. In the detection model comparison, the YOLOv11m-seg model emerged as the top performer for detection, achieving a BBox AP@50 of 99.38%, Mask AP@50 of 99.26%, at 75.49 FPS. Our proposed tracking algorithm, PTAV3, which leverages location and direction prediction, achieved an exceptional overall accuracy of 99.94% (95% CI: 99.7-100%). For classification, the best model-an EfficientNet-B7 + LSTM architecture-yielded an accuracy of 95.95% (95% CI: 94.8-97.1%) and an F1-score of 96.06% (95% CI: 94.8-97.1%) on unseen test data, using a 5-frame sequence with no pre-processing filter. This integrated system provides a robust, automated, and objective solution for lameness scoring, showcasing the potential for real-time animal welfare monitoring in agricultural settings.
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.