These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

169 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 21377385)

  • 1. Inter-observer reliability testing of pig welfare outcome measures proposed for inclusion within farm assurance schemes.
    Mullan S; Edwards SA; Butterworth A; Whay HR; Main DCJ
    Vet J; 2011 Nov; 190(2):e100-e109. PubMed ID: 21377385
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Inter- and intra-observer reliability of animal welfare indicators for the on-farm self-assessment of fattening pigs.
    Pfeifer M; Eggemann L; Kransmann J; Schmitt AO; Hessel EF
    Animal; 2019 Aug; 13(8):1712-1720. PubMed ID: 30630538
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The "Real Welfare" scheme: Identification of risk and protective factors for welfare outcomes in commercial pig farms in the UK.
    Pandolfi F; Kyriazakis I; Stoddart K; Wainwright N; Edwards SA
    Prev Vet Med; 2017 Oct; 146():34-43. PubMed ID: 28992926
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Reliability of indicators of sheep welfare assessed by a group observation method.
    Phythian CJ; Cripps PJ; Michalopoulou E; Jones PH; Grove-White D; Clarkson MJ; Winter AC; Stubbings LA; Duncan JS
    Vet J; 2012 Jul; 193(1):257-63. PubMed ID: 22266020
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Inter-observer agreement, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of animal-based indicators of young lamb welfare.
    Phythian CJ; Toft N; Cripps PJ; Michalopoulou E; Winter AC; Jones PH; Grove-White D; Duncan JS
    Animal; 2013 Jul; 7(7):1182-90. PubMed ID: 23561038
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. The 'Real Welfare' scheme: benchmarking welfare outcomes for commercially farmed pigs.
    Pandolfi F; Stoddart K; Wainwright N; Kyriazakis I; Edwards SA
    Animal; 2017 Oct; 11(10):1816-1824. PubMed ID: 28249629
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Validation of a behavioral observation tool to assess pig welfare.
    Smulders D; Verbeke G; Mormède P; Geers R
    Physiol Behav; 2006 Oct; 89(3):438-47. PubMed ID: 16904137
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Consultation of pig farmers on the inclusion of some welfare outcome assessments within UK farm assurance.
    Mullan S; Butterworth A; Whay HR; Edwards S; Main DC
    Vet Rec; 2010 May; 166(22):678-80. PubMed ID: 20511650
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. 'Tailception': using neural networks for assessing tail lesions on pictures of pig carcasses.
    Brünger J; Dippel S; Koch R; Veit C
    Animal; 2019 May; 13(5):1030-1036. PubMed ID: 30428955
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Reliability of the qualitative behavior assessment as included in the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for growing pigs.
    Czycholl I; Beilage EG; Henning C; Krieter J
    J Anim Sci; 2017 Aug; 95(8):3445-3454. PubMed ID: 28805930
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. On-farm animal welfare assessment in beef bulls: consistency over time of single measures and aggregated Welfare Quality(®) scores.
    Kirchner MK; Schulze Westerath H; Knierim U; Tessitore E; Cozzi G; Winckler C
    Animal; 2014 Mar; 8(3):461-9. PubMed ID: 24330803
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Validation of carcass lesions as indicators for on-farm health and welfare of pigs.
    van Staaveren N; Doyle B; Manzanilla EG; Calderón Díaz JA; Hanlon A; Boyle LA
    J Anim Sci; 2017 Apr; 95(4):1528-1536. PubMed ID: 28464078
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Inter-observer reliability of animal-based welfare indicators included in the Animal Welfare Indicators welfare assessment protocol for dairy goats.
    Vieira A; Battini M; Can E; Mattiello S; Stilwell G
    Animal; 2018 Sep; 12(9):1942-1949. PubMed ID: 29306346
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. The prediction of pouch of Douglas obliteration using offline analysis of the transvaginal ultrasound 'sliding sign' technique: inter- and intra-observer reproducibility.
    Reid S; Lu C; Casikar I; Mein B; Magotti R; Ludlow J; Benzie R; Condous G
    Hum Reprod; 2013 May; 28(5):1237-46. PubMed ID: 23482338
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Pig welfare assessment: development of a protocol and its use by veterinary undergraduates.
    Wright AJ; Powney SL; Nevel A; Wathes CM
    J Vet Med Educ; 2009; 36(1):50-61. PubMed ID: 19435990
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Application of welfare assessment to commercial livestock production.
    Main DC
    J Appl Anim Welf Sci; 2009; 12(2):97-104. PubMed ID: 19319712
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Assessing pig body language: agreement and consistency between pig farmers, veterinarians, and animal activists.
    Wemelsfelder F; Hunter AE; Paul ES; Lawrence AB
    J Anim Sci; 2012 Oct; 90(10):3652-65. PubMed ID: 22745187
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Measuring welfare in rearing piglets: test-retest reliability of selected animal-based indicators.
    Witt J; Krieter J; Wilder T; Czycholl I
    J Anim Sci; 2023 Jan; 101():. PubMed ID: 37209717
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Test-retest reliability of the Welfare Quality Assessment protocol for pigs applied to sows and piglets. Part 2. Assessment of the principles good feeding, good housing, and good health1.
    Friedrich L; Krieter J; Kemper N; Czycholl I
    J Anim Sci; 2019 Mar; 97(3):1143-1157. PubMed ID: 30668710
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Experienced and inexperienced observers achieved relatively high within-observer agreement on video mobility scoring of dairy cows.
    Garcia E; König K; Allesen-Holm BH; Klaas IC; Amigo JM; Bro R; Enevoldsen C
    J Dairy Sci; 2015 Jul; 98(7):4560-71. PubMed ID: 25935241
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 9.