ReviewPoultry science2026
Assessing good physical health and resilience as a foundation for positive welfare in chickens.
Review in Poultry 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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This review proposes candidate animal‑based indicators of good physical health and resilience in chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) as a foundation for assessing positive animal welfare, complementing existing approaches to animal welfare assessment focused on use of iceberg indicators to detect severe health problems. We outline potential anatomical indicators involving the comb and wattles, eyes, beak, plumage, skin, footpads, claws, and overall body for rapid on-farm screening that could be automated for ease of application (e.g. using computer vision). We also identify health- and resilience-related anatomical and physiological indicators that could provide deeper, context‑dependent insights but require controlled testing conditions and/or laboratory analysis. For each indicator category, we summarize biological significance, influencing factors, and measurement methods under commercial and research settings. We classify candidate indicators according to their focus (health vs resilience) and response directionality on a scale from tolerable to optimal (whereby optimal values are highest for unidirectional measures such as plumage condition and intermediate for bidirectional measures such as claw length). We also rate potential ease of data collection (invasive, catching required, or remote sampling), on-farm applicability, and level of promise as a guide for indicator selection and prioritization for validation. Following validation and establishment of an appropriate scoring range from tolerable to optimal for each indicator depending on age, breed type, and reproductive status, we propose the use of continuous visual analogue scales or algorithms for scoring, followed by aggregation of indicator scores to obtain an overall rating of each bird's health and resilience. This narrative review thus provides a biologically grounded roadmap for developing proactive assessment tools that support thriving in poultry, as a foundation upon which affective and cognitive components of positive animal welfare can also be added.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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 Socratic graph.