ReviewSensors (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Smart Animal Welfare: A Review of Sensing Technologies, Deployment Challenges, and AI-Driven Insights.
Review in Sensors (Basel, Switzerland), 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Precision livestock farming (PLF) integrates sensing technologies, data acquisition (DAQ) systems, and machine learning (ML) frameworks to continuously monitor individual animals and support welfare assessment through physiological and behavioral observations. Advances in infrared thermography, radar sensing, vision-based systems, acoustic monitoring, and wearable technologies have substantially expanded the ability to collect high-resolution data describing animal responses to internal and external stimuli. However, despite considerable technological progress, a persistent gap remains between sensing performance demonstrated under controlled experimental conditions and reliable deployment within commercial livestock environments. This gap is characterized by environmental variability, unrestricted animal movement, and operational constraints within commercial environments. Using a structured review methodology, this review examines sensing modalities, embedded DAQ architectures, communication strategies, ML methodologies, data privacy, farmer adoption, and an illustrative engineering workflow through the lens of welfare-relevant physiological characteristics. Emphasis placed on the distinction between direct sensor measurements and the biological processes they represent. Sensor outputs do not directly quantify welfare, stressors, or management outcomes; rather, they provide measurements of physiological and behavioral responses that require appropriate biological context for meaningful interpretation. As a result, welfare assessment does not depend solely on the ability to acquire data, but also on the ability to accurately relate those data to underlying physiological mechanisms. Within this framework, ML serves as a critical bridge between measurement and interpretation by enabling the analysis of complex, multimodal datasets. Future advancement of welfare-oriented PLF systems will require stronger alignment among sensing methodologies, physiological understanding, and practical deployment realities to generate meaningful, scalable, and biologically grounded welfare assessments.
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.