Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42827718›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026

From data silos to actionable insights: a comparative evaluation of data access models and practical guidelines for animal health surveillance.

Saba Noor, Ruben Taelman, Jeroen Degroote, Bart Pardon, Gerdien van Schaik, Muhammad Rafiq, Camille Delavenne, Enhong Liu, Hanlu Zhang, Puchun Niu and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in veterinary science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Saba NoorDepartment of Animal Sciences and Aquatic Ecology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Ruben TaelmanIDLab, Department of Electronics and Information Systems, Ghent University-IMEC, Ghent, Belgium.
Jeroen DegrooteDepartment of Animal Sciences and Aquatic Ecology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Bart PardonDepartment of Internal Medicine, Reproduction, and Population Medicine, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Gerdien van SchaikDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Unit Farm Animal Health, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Muhammad RafiqFaculty of Engineering Technology, KU Leuven, Brugge, Belgium.
Camille DelavenneEpiMundi, Lyon, France.
Enhong LiuDepartment of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
Hanlu ZhangDepartment of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
Puchun NiuDepartment of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, United States.
Miel HostensDepartment of Animal Sciences and Aquatic Ecology, Faculty of Bioscience Engineering, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Effective livestock disease surveillance depends on scalable, privacy-conscious access to distributed diagnostic data, yet current systems are constrained by fragmented datasets, inconsistent formats, and limited interoperability. Objective: This paper compares three approaches for accessing distributed animal health data: direct data sharing, centralized access, and federated access using Solid Pods. The comparison covers architectural properties, query performance benchmarks, and the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable) maturity of the data artifacts produced by each approach, with the aim of providing practical guidance for choosing the right strategy in livestock health surveillance. Methods: The three approaches were characterized along seven operational criteria: data access mechanism, privacy and governance, integration workflow, consistency, workflow scalability, ease of use, and total cost of ownership, using the European Cattle Barometer as a testbed. Two experiments measured query performance: centralized versus federated SPARQL on 76,295 cattle records (740,056 RDF triples) across five Solid Pods, and vertical versus horizontal federation across 12 Pods. Queries were mapped to the Livestock Health Ontology (LHO), run five times, with differences tested using Welch's t-test. FAIR maturity was scored against the 41 indicators of the Research Data Alliance (RDA) FAIR Data Maturity Model. Results: Across the seven operational criteria, direct sharing scored high only on ease of use but low on scalability, privacy, integration, and consistency. Centralized access scored highest on data consistency and ease of automation, while federated access scored highest on workflow scalability, privacy and governance, and data integration. Centralized queries finished in 20.2 ± 4.1 s versus 30.0 ± 2.2 s for federated, 1.49 times slower ( Conclusion: No single approach suits all situations: direct sharing for short-term simplicity, centralized access for fast dashboards, and federated access where data ownership and FAIR-aligned outputs matter. In particular, the choice between centralized and federated access is a trade-off between query speed and data sovereignty. These findings inform practical, scalable, and privacy-conscious data-sharing guidelines for livestock disease surveillance.

Indexed as

animal health surveillancedata sovereigntyfair principlesfederated data accessontologiessolid podsveterinary epidemiology

Identifiers

PMID42827718
PMCPMC13631730

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.