[Paper Review] Alternative Scoring Method of Pleurisy in Slaughtered Pigs: Preliminary Investigations

Giuseppe Marruchella, Michael Odintzov Vaintrub+4 more|arXiv (Cornell University)|Apr 2, 2019

Microbial infections and disease research4 references4 citations

TL;DR

This study proposes PEPP (Pleurisy Evaluation on Parietal Pleura), an alternative scoring method for pleurisy in slaughtered pigs based on visual inspection of the parietal pleura in three anatomical zones. The method showed a very high correlation (r = 0.913) with the established SPES system, demonstrating high reliability, speed, and simplicity, making it a viable alternative for routine slaughterhouse monitoring of respiratory health in swine. - meta_description: PEPP is a fast, reliable alternative to SPES for scoring pleurisy in slaughtered pigs using parietal pleura inspection, showing 0.913 correlation with gold standard. - objective: • To develop a simpler, faster method for scoring pleurisy in slaughtered pigs. • To evaluate whether parietal pleura inspection can replace visceral pleura scoring in existing systems. • To compare the new method (PEPP) with the widely used SPES system for consistency and accuracy. • To assess the feasibility of remote scoring using digital images of the parietal pleura. - method: • Pigs were scored based on lesion presence in three intercostal zones: 1st–3rd (1 point), 4th–6th (2 points), and caudal (3 points). • Total PEPP score ranged from 0 to 12 per carcass, summing scores from both halves. • SPES scores were obtained by examining visceral pleura and lung lesions. • Statistical comparison used Pearson correlation (r), linear regression (R²), and one-way ANOVA. • Inter-rater agreement was ensured via standardized training for three veterinarians. - research_questions: • Can scoring pleurisy on the parietal pleura produce results comparable to the SPES system? • Is the PEPP method faster and easier to apply in a slaughterhouse setting? • Does the PEPP method reduce subjectivity compared to visceral pleura scoring? • Can PEPP scores be reliably derived from digital images for remote evaluation? - key_findings: • The PEPP method achieved a Pearson correlation of r = 0.913 with the SPES system, indicating near-identical results. • The coefficient of determination (R²) from linear regression was 0.833, confirming strong functional agreement between methods. • 50.46% of pigs had pleurisy via SPES, and 50% via PEPP, showing near-identical detection rates. • Only 8 pigs with interlobar adhesions and 7 with small lesions in the first intercostal spaces were misclassified by PEPP, indicating high sensitivity. • The PEPP method required only 5–10 seconds per pig and was performed in a cleaner, less stressful environment than SPES. • The method showed potential for remote scoring using digital images, with minimal influence from blood staining or lung scarring.

ABSTRACT

The slaughterhouse is very useful in monitoring the health status of livestock, the profitability of their breeding and the effectiveness of therapeutic and/or prophylactic strategies. Over the years, a number of methods have been developed to quantify lesions - especially those effecting the respiratory tract, observed in slaughtered animals. Among these is the "Slaughterhouse Pleurisy Evaluation System" (SPES), which is widely used to score pleural lesions caused by Actinobacillus pleuropneumoniae. The aim of the present study is to develop and assess an alternative method to score pleurisy in slaughtered pigs, based on the inspection of the parietal pleura. This method has been compared with the SPES grid, which is considered as the "gold standard" in this field of study. Preliminary data indicate that the two methods provide almost overlapping results, showing very high correlation coefficients. Scoring pleurisy on the parietal pleura proved to be fast and easy, it could represent a valuable alternative to the SPES method.

Motivation & Objective

• To develop a simpler, faster method for scoring pleurisy in slaughtered pigs.
• To evaluate whether parietal pleura inspection can replace visceral pleura scoring in existing systems.
• To compare the new method (PEPP) with the widely used SPES system for consistency and accuracy.
• To assess the feasibility of remote scoring using digital images of the parietal pleura.

Proposed method

• Pigs were scored based on lesion presence in three intercostal zones: 1st–3rd (1 point), 4th–6th (2 points), and caudal (3 points).
• Total PEPP score ranged from 0 to 12 per carcass, summing scores from both halves.
• SPES scores were obtained by examining visceral pleura and lung lesions.
• Statistical comparison used Pearson correlation (r), linear regression (R²), and one-way ANOVA.
• Inter-rater agreement was ensured via standardized training for three veterinarians.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 Can scoring pleurisy on the parietal pleura produce results comparable to the SPES system?
• RQ2 Is the PEPP method faster and easier to apply in a slaughterhouse setting?
• RQ3 Does the PEPP method reduce subjectivity compared to visceral pleura scoring?
• RQ4 Can PEPP scores be reliably derived from digital images for remote evaluation?

Key findings

• The PEPP method achieved a Pearson correlation of r = 0.913 with the SPES system, indicating near-identical results.
• The coefficient of determination (R²) from linear regression was 0.833, confirming strong functional agreement between methods.
• 50.46% of pigs had pleurisy via SPES, and 50% via PEPP, showing near-identical detection rates.
• Only 8 pigs with interlobar adhesions and 7 with small lesions in the first intercostal spaces were misclassified by PEPP, indicating high sensitivity.
• The PEPP method required only 5–10 seconds per pig and was performed in a cleaner, less stressful environment than SPES.
• The method showed potential for remote scoring using digital images, with minimal influence from blood staining or lung scarring.