MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Marker‐assisted selection based on a multi‐trait economic index in chicken: experimental results and simulation

2006· article· en· W2019862819 on OpenAlexaff
Tamar Lahav, Gil Atzmon, S. Blum, Giora Ben‐Ari, Steffen Weigend, A. Cahaner, U. Lavi, J. Hillel

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimal Genetics · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsLunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research InstituteMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSireBiologyTraitSelection (genetic algorithm)HeritabilityQuantitative trait locusMarker-assisted selectionStatisticsValue (mathematics)GeneticsIndex selectionIndex (typography)Evolutionary biologyGeneMathematicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceAnimal science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A method proposed herein allows simultaneous selection for several production traits, taking into consideration their marginal economic values (i.e. the economic value of a trait's additional unit). This economic index-marker assisted selection (EI-MAS) method is based on the calculation of the predicted economic breeding value (BV), using information on DNA markers that have previously been found to be associated with relevant quantitative trait loci. Based on the proposed method, results with real birds showed that sire progeny performance was significantly correlated with expected performance (r = 0.61-0.76; P = 0.03-0.01). Simulation analysis using a computer program written specifically for this purpose suggested that the relative advantage of EI-MAS would be large for traits with low heritability values. As expected, the response to EI-MAS was higher when the map distance between the marker and the quantitative trait gene was small, and vice versa. A large number of distantly located markers, spread 10 cM apart, yielded higher response to selection than a small number of closely located markers spread 3 cM apart. Additionally, the response to EI-MAS was higher when a large number (ca.150) of progeny was used for the prediction equation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.780
Threshold uncertainty score0.738

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.247 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimal GeneticsSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207