Genetic evaluation of the total hip score of four populous breeds of dog, as recorded by the New Zealand Veterinary Association Hip Dysplasia Scheme (1991–2011)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To use estimated breeding value (EBV) analysis to investigate the genetic trend of the total hip score (to assess canine hip dysplasia) in four populous breeds of dogs using the records from the New Zealand Veterinary Association (NZVA) Canine Hip Dysplasia Scheme database (1991 to 2011). METHODS: Estimates of heritability and EBV for the NZVA total hip score of individual dogs from the German Shepherd, Labrador Retriever, Golden Retriever and Rottweiler breeds were obtained using restricted maximum likelihood procedures with a within-breed linear animal model. The model included the fixed effects of gender, birth year, birth season, age at scoring and the random effect of animal. The pedigree file included animals recorded between 1990 and 2011. A total of 2,983 NZVA hip score records, from a pedigree of 3,172 animals, were available for genetic evaluation. Genetic trends of the NZVA total hip score were calculated as the regression coefficient of the EBV (weighted by reliabilities) on year of birth. RESULTS: The estimates of heritability for hip score were 0.32 (SE 0.08) in German Shepherd, 0.37 (SE 0.08) in Labrador Retriever, 0.29 (SE 0.08) in Golden Retriever and 0.52 (SE 0.18) in Rottweiler breeds. Genetic trend analysis revealed that only the German Shepherd breed exhibited a genetic trend towards better hip conformation over time, with a decline of 0.13 (SE 0.04) NZVA total hip score units per year (p<0.001). The genetic trends of total hip score for the remaining three breeds were not significantly different from zero (p>0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Despite moderate heritability of the NZVA total hip score, there has not been substantial improvement of this trait for the four breeds analysed in the study period. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Greater improvement in reducing the prevalence of canine hip dysplasia may be possible if screening were to be compulsory as a requirement for registration of pedigree breeding stock, greater selection pressure were to be applied and selection of breeding stock made on the basis on an individual's EBV rather than the NZVA total hip score alone.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".