Predicting methionine and lysine contents in soybean meal and fish meal using a group method of data handling-type neural network
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Artificial neural network models offer an alternative to linear regression analysis for predicting the amino acid content of feeds from their chemical composition. A group method of data handling-type neural network (GMDH-type NN), with an evolutionary method of genetic algorithm, was used to predict methionine (Met) and lysine (Lys) contents of soybean meal (SBM) and fish meal (FM) from their proximate analyses (i.e. crude protein, crude fat, crude fibre, ash and moisture). A data set with 119 data lines for Met and 116 lines for Lys was used to develop GMDH-type NN models with two hidden layers. The data lines were divided into two groups to produce training and validation sets. The data sets were imported into the GEvoM software for training the networks. The predictive capability of the constructed models was evaluated by their abilities to estimate the validation data sets accurately. A quantitative examination of goodness of fit for the predictive models was made using a number of precision, concordance and bias statistics. The statistical performance of the models developed revealed close agreement between observed and predicted Met and Lys contents for SBM and FM. The results of this study clearly illustrate the validity of GMDH-type NN models to estimate accurately the amino acid content of poultry feed ingredients from their chemical composition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".