ArticleAnimal science journal = Nihon chikusan Gakkaiho
Evaluation of Approaches to Cattle Calving Prediction Based on Vaginal Temperature: Machine Learning-Versus Threshold-Based Models.
Article in Animal science journal = Nihon chikusan Gakkaiho. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prediction of calving among cattle based on body temperature is used to prevent calving accidents. However, conventional threshold-based methods often miss or misdetect signs of calving. We quantitatively compared a machine learning-based model with conventional threshold-based methods for calving prediction using vaginal temperature data from wearable devices. Vaginal temperature was recorded at 5-min intervals from approximately 7 days before the expected calving date until parturition in beef (n = 77) and dairy cattle (n = 78). Twenty-six time-series features were extracted, and a machine learning-based calving prediction model was developed using gradient-boosted decision trees. The model predicting calving within 24 h achieved 84.4% and 94.9% sensitivity and 60.2% and 56.1% precision in beef and dairy cattle, respectively, compared with 70.1% and 76.9% sensitivity and 38.3% and 51.7% precision for a conventional threshold-based model using fixed threshold values derived from previous literature. Furthermore, the model predicting calving within 12 h achieved performance comparable to that of the 24-h model (81.8% and 84.6% sensitivity; 50.0% and 42.3% precision, respectively), suggesting the feasibility of customizable alert timing across multiple time windows. Further improvements, including larger datasets and refined feature engineering and model optimization, are needed to reduce missed and false detections.
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.