Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42876580›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in veterinary science2026

Risk-based prioritization of official animal welfare inspections using machine learning.

Eva Obenaus, Sabrina Kuchling, Tadej Zerak, Corina Schleicher, Ian Kopacka, Sven Budik, Sabine Grimme, Jörg Hiesel, Peter Eckhardt, Johannes Baumgartner 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.

Eva ObenausCentre for Veterinary Public Health and One Health, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Transformation, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Sabrina KuchlingDivision of Data, Statistics and Risk Assessment, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Graz, Austria.
Tadej ZerakDivision of Data, Statistics and Risk Assessment, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Graz, Austria.
Corina SchleicherDivision of Data, Statistics and Risk Assessment, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Graz, Austria.
Ian KopackaDivision of Data, Statistics and Risk Assessment, Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety (AGES), Graz, Austria.
Sven BudikDepartment of Veterinary Administration, Styrian Provincial Government, Graz, Austria.
Sabine GrimmeDepartment of Veterinary Administration, Styrian Provincial Government, Graz, Austria.
Jörg HieselDepartment of Veterinary Administration, Styrian Provincial Government, Graz, Austria.
Peter EckhardtDepartment of Veterinary Administration, Styrian Provincial Government, Graz, Austria.
Johannes BaumgartnerAnimal Welfare Science Unit, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Transformation, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Clair L FirthCentre for Veterinary Public Health and One Health, Clinical Department for Farm Animals and Food System Transformation, University of Veterinary Medicine Vienna, Vienna, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: For official animal welfare inspections in Austria, at least 2% of agricultural livestock farms must be selected and inspected on the basis of a risk-based random sample. In the federal state of Styria, more than 19,000 farms keep livestock, while the inspection capacity of official veterinarians is limited, requiring efficient prioritization of farm checks. This study aimed to develop a machine learning model leveraging routinely collected administrative and animal health data to identify farms in Styria at higher risk of animal welfare violations. Methods: The statistical analyses incorporated the outcomes of animal welfare inspections from 2019 to 2023, aggregated by farm and year. A total of 2,647 aggregated inspection results were used to train an Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model, with a further 475 results used for testing purposes. Information about farms (e.g., production type, farmer and regional data, livestock data), as well as slaughter and meat inspection data, was acquired from the Consumer Health Information System database ( Results: Results showed a moderate model performance with AUC (Area under the curve) of 0.75 (95%-CI [0.66, 0.82]), MCC (Matthews Correlation Coefficient) of 0.25 (95%-CI [0.19, 0.37]) and AP (Average Precision) of 0.19 (95%-CI [0.11-0.31]) for the test set. Discussion: These results indicate that routinely recorded administrative and veterinary data can provide meaningful indicators for identifying farms with a higher risk of animal welfare violations. Although some predictors appear indirectly linked to welfare, they likely reflect broader farm management practices and animal health status. Risk-based sampling could support veterinary authorities in prioritizing farms for inspection and allocating inspection resources more efficiently.

Indexed as

animal welfareanimal welfare violationsdata-based indicatorsmachine learning modelrisk-based samplingwelfare violation indicator

Identifiers

PMID42876580
PMCPMC13661325

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.