Estimation of carcass composition and cut composition from computed tomography images of live growing pigs of different genotypes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the present work was (1) to study the relationship between cross-sectional computed tomography (CT) images obtained in live growing pigs of different genotypes and dissection measurements and (2) to estimate carcass composition and cut composition from CT measurements. Sixty gilts from three genotypes (Duroc×(Landrace×Large White), Pietrain×(Landrace×Large White), and Landrace×Large White) were CT scanned and slaughtered at 30 kg (n=15), 70 kg (n=15), 100 kg (n=12) or 120 kg (n=18). Carcasses were cut and the four main cuts were dissected. The distribution of density volumes on the Hounsfield scale (HU) were obtained from CT images and classified into fat (HU between -149 and -1), muscle (HU between 0 and 140) or bone (HU between 141 and 1400). Moreover, physical measurements were obtained on an image of the loin and an image of the ham. Four different regression approaches were studied to predict carcass and cut composition: linear regression, quadratic regression and allometric equations using volumes as predictors, and linear regression using volumes and physical measurements as predictors. Results show that measurements from whole animal taken in vivo with CT allow accurate estimation of carcass and cut composition. The prediction accuracy varied across genotypes, BW and variable to be predicted. In general, linear models, allometric models and linear models, which included also physical measurements at the loin and the ham, produced the lowest prediction errors.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".