MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074135027 · doi:10.1093/ps/80.7.844

Estimation of Genetic Parameters for Ascites Syndrome in Broiler Chickens

2001· article· en· W2074135027 on OpenAlexafffund
Hooman K. Moghadam, I. McMillan, James R. Chambers, RJ Julian

Bibliographic record

VenuePoultry Science · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAnimal Nutrition and Physiology
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaUniversity of Guelph
FundersPoultry Industry Council
KeywordsSireHeritabilityBiologyBroilerAnimal scienceGenetic correlationBody weightVeterinary medicineCorrelation coefficientGenetic variationStatisticsGeneticsMedicineMathematicsEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic parameters for the ascites syndrome (AS) were estimated for meat-type chickens. Data had been collected over 11 generations of selection for body weight and other traits within two distinct breeds (Cornish and White Rock). Linear methods (LM) were used to estimate genetic parameters and also to analyze a binary measure of survival. Survival analyses (SA) were also conducted to estimate the effects of various factors influencing the incidence of AS by evaluating the number of days that the birds survived. The animal model was used exclusively with linear methods. Heritabilities (h2) on the liability scale were 0.12 +/- 0.02 and 0.22 +/- 0.01 in the White Rock and Cornish breeds, respectively; however, the genetic correlation (r(g)) with body weight was not possible to estimate due to the low prevalence of the defect trait studied (1.5% in the Cornish and 1.1% in the White Rock). Because males are more prone to AS, the h2 using the male records only were 0.22 +/- 0.017 and 0.41 +/- 0.009, and the r(g) were 0.35 +/- 0.007 and 0.22 +/- 0.009 in the dam and sire populations, respectively. In conclusion, the heart defect investigated was heritable and had a positive genetic correlation with body weight.

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 score0.752
Threshold uncertainty score0.091

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations62
Published2001
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePoultry ScienceSame topicAnimal Nutrition and PhysiologyFrench-language works237,207