ReviewAnimals : an open access journal from MDPI2026
Hooves, Sensors, and Signals: Precision Approaches to Automated Lameness Detection in Dairy Cattle.
Review in Animals : an open access journal from MDPI, 2026. 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
Lameness remains one of the most significant welfare and economic challenges in modern dairy production. Traditional detection methods, particularly visual locomotion scoring, are limited by subjectivity, inconsistent application, and infrequent monitoring, which often delays the recognition of painful lesions. This review synthesizes recent validation studies of automated lameness detection (ALD) technologies and evaluates their diagnostic performance, validation design, and practical implementation across dairy systems. Studies were screened for relevance by a single reviewer based on title, abstract, and full-text content. Included studies represented sensor-based, pressure-based, vision-based, and multimodal detection platforms, with reported accuracies ranging from approximately 70% to 98% depending on modality and environmental setting. Vision-based systems demonstrated strong performance in controlled conditions, whereas field-validated systems showed more moderate but potentially more generalizable accuracy. Pressure-based platforms reported high diagnostic discrimination via area under the curve (AUC) analysis but face infrastructural limitations in commercial settings. Risk-of-bias assessment indicated that controlled experimental studies without external validation may overestimate deployment performance. Despite technological advances, variability in validation protocols, lesion thresholds, and environmental robustness limits direct comparison across systems. Future research should prioritize multi-farm external validation, standardized benchmarking frameworks, and multimodal integration within precision livestock farming ecosystems to improve reliability and adoption.
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.