ArticlePoultry science2026
Validation of an automated system for at-slaughter assessment of footpad dermatitis and hock burn in broiler chickens.
Article in Poultry science, 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.
- Catch damage in broiler chickens: a systematic review of injury assessment methods and their limitations.Poultry science · 2026Review
- Research note: Colorimetric phenotyping of bruises in broiler carcasses under commercial slaughterhouse conditions.Poultry science · 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The automated assessment of footpad dermatitis and hock burn via camera systems at the slaughterline could allow continuous monitoring of these important welfare indicators in broiler chickens. This study aimed to compare the performance of a camera system (ChickenCheck software, CLK GmbH) against three human assessors. Footpad dermatitis (4 point scale based on relative size of the lesions compared to the footpad) and hock burn (3 point scale based on absolute size of the lesions) were scored on both the left and right foot and hock according to severity from images captured by the camera system. A total of 50 images (100 feet and hocks) were used in the training dataset used to train the human assessors and 500 images (1,000 feet and hocks) were used in the validation dataset to determine measures of agreement and reliability for the discrete scoring system. Additionally, 100 images were used for lesion annotation (200 feet and hock) to determine the agreement between the camera system and the human assessors in capturing the total area affected by lesions. Despite showing substantial to good intra-observer reliability (kappa: 0.78-0.98) and moderate to substantial inter-observer reliability (kappa: 0.46-0.66) during training, the human assessors showed fair to moderate agreement (kappa: 0.33-0.47) for footpad dermatitis and hock burn when the dataset included a larger number of images with greater variation in lesion severity and appearance. However, the human assessors showed moderate to substantial agreement with the scores assigned by the camera system (0.60-0.70). More importantly, human assessors and camera system are highly correlated when it comes to indicating the size of lesions on the footpad (R
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.