Varying image assessment of pecking injuries in Turkeys while performing repetitions.

IF 2 3区 农林科学 Q2 VETERINARY SCIENCES
Nina Volkmann, Lars Schmarje, Reinhard Koch, Nicole Kemper
{"title":"Varying image assessment of pecking injuries in Turkeys while performing repetitions.","authors":"Nina Volkmann, Lars Schmarje, Reinhard Koch, Nicole Kemper","doi":"10.1007/s11259-025-10833-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study investigated variations in assessing potential pecking injuries in turkey hens when annotating image excerpts. Three observers (OBS1, OBS2, OBS3) with different levels of previous knowledge - one with experience in pecking injuries in turkeys and two computer science students - rated a total of 24,912 image excerpts. The image excerpts were evaluated in work packages (2,076 images each) and were classified by the observers as either head injury (HI), skin injury in the feathered area of the body (SI), or no injury (NI). Two observers evaluated three packages (OBS1, OBS2: 6,228 image excerpts each) and OBS3 annnotated six work packages (12,456 excerpts). The percentage of the classifications in the chronological sequence of the observations was analyzed. Inexperienced observers (OBS2 and OBS3) both classified an average of 13% of the shown images as HI, 70% as SI, and 17% as NI. On average, OBS1 classified 12% of the images as HI, 60% as SI, and 28% as NI. Throughout the study, all observers classified more recordings into the NI class. Particularly, OBS1 with the most experience in evaluating pecking injuries showed a different assessment by rating more images (plus 5%) as showing NI over time (OBS2: plus 0.7%; OBS3: plus 2.2%). This result raises questions about whether divergent assessments always occur in repeated judgments and how this effect can be avoided.</p>","PeriodicalId":23690,"journal":{"name":"Veterinary Research Communications","volume":"49 5","pages":"278"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12334434/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Veterinary Research Communications","FirstCategoryId":"97","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11259-025-10833-6","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"农林科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"VETERINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study investigated variations in assessing potential pecking injuries in turkey hens when annotating image excerpts. Three observers (OBS1, OBS2, OBS3) with different levels of previous knowledge - one with experience in pecking injuries in turkeys and two computer science students - rated a total of 24,912 image excerpts. The image excerpts were evaluated in work packages (2,076 images each) and were classified by the observers as either head injury (HI), skin injury in the feathered area of the body (SI), or no injury (NI). Two observers evaluated three packages (OBS1, OBS2: 6,228 image excerpts each) and OBS3 annnotated six work packages (12,456 excerpts). The percentage of the classifications in the chronological sequence of the observations was analyzed. Inexperienced observers (OBS2 and OBS3) both classified an average of 13% of the shown images as HI, 70% as SI, and 17% as NI. On average, OBS1 classified 12% of the images as HI, 60% as SI, and 28% as NI. Throughout the study, all observers classified more recordings into the NI class. Particularly, OBS1 with the most experience in evaluating pecking injuries showed a different assessment by rating more images (plus 5%) as showing NI over time (OBS2: plus 0.7%; OBS3: plus 2.2%). This result raises questions about whether divergent assessments always occur in repeated judgments and how this effect can be avoided.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

在重复表演时对火鸡啄伤的不同图像评估。
本研究调查了在注释图像摘录时评估火鸡母鸡潜在啄伤的变化。三个具有不同知识水平的观察者(OBS1, OBS2, OBS3)——一个有火鸡啄伤的经验,另两个是计算机科学专业的学生——总共对24,912张图片进行了评分。图像摘录在工作包中进行评估(每个2,076张图像),并由观察员分类为头部损伤(HI),身体羽毛区域的皮肤损伤(SI)或无损伤(NI)。两名观察员评估了三个包(OBS1, OBS2:每个包6,228个图像摘录),OBS3注释了六个工作包(12,456个摘录)。按观察的时间顺序分析分类的百分比。没有经验的观察者(OBS2和OBS3)都将显示的图像平均分为13%为HI, 70%为SI, 17%为NI。平均而言,OBS1将12%的图像分类为HI, 60%为SI, 28%为NI。在整个研究过程中,所有的观察者都将更多的录音分类为NI类。特别是,在评估啄伤方面经验最丰富的OBS1显示了不同的评估,通过将更多的图像(加5%)评为显示NI随时间的变化(OBS2:加0.7%;OBS3: + 2.2%)。这一结果提出了一个问题,即在重复判断中是否总是出现不同的评估,以及如何避免这种影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Veterinary Research Communications
Veterinary Research Communications 农林科学-兽医学
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
173
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: Veterinary Research Communications publishes fully refereed research articles and topical reviews on all aspects of the veterinary sciences. Interdisciplinary articles are particularly encouraged, as are well argued reviews, even if they are somewhat controversial. The journal is an appropriate medium in which to publish new methods, newly described diseases and new pathological findings, as these are applied to animals. The material should be of international rather than local interest. As it deliberately seeks a wide coverage, Veterinary Research Communications provides its readers with a means of keeping abreast of current developments in the entire field of veterinary science.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信