Nina Volkmann, Lars Schmarje, Reinhard Koch, Nicole Kemper
{"title":"在重复表演时对火鸡啄伤的不同图像评估。","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":"{\"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}","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}
Varying image assessment of pecking injuries in Turkeys while performing repetitions.
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.
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.