Prediction of the herd somatic cell count of the following month using a linear mixed effect model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An accurate prediction of the average somatic cell count (SCC) for the next month would be a valuable tool to support udder health management decisions. A linear mixed effect (LME) model was used to predict the average herd SCC (HSCC) for the following month. The LME model included data on SCC, herd characteristics, season, and management practices determined in a previous study that quantified the contribution of each factor for the HSCC. The LME model was tested on a new data set of 101 farms and included data from 3 consecutive years. The farms were split randomly in 2 groups of 50 and 51 farms. The first group of 50 farms was used to check for systematic errors in predicting monthly HSCC. An initial model was based on older data from a different part of the Netherlands and systematically overestimated HSCC in most months. Therefore, the model was adjusted for the difference in average HSCC between the 2 sets of farms (from the previous and current study) using the data from the first group of 50 farms. Subsequently, the data from the second group of 51 farms were used to independently assess this final model. A null model (no explanatory variables included) predicted 48 and 59% of the HSCC within the predetermined range of 20,000 and 30,000 cells/mL, respectively. The final LME model predicted 72 and 81% of the HSCC of the next month correctly within these 2 ranges. These outcomes indicate that the final LME model was a valid additional tool for farmers that could be useful in their short-term decisions regarding udder health management and could be included in dairy herd health programs.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".