MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2155653904 · doi:10.3168/jds.2014-9257

Genomic prediction of dry matter intake in dairy cattle from an international data set consisting of research herds in Europe, North America, and Australasia

2015· article· en· W2155653904 on OpenAlexaff
Y. de Haas, J.E. Pryce, M.P.L. Calus, E. Wall, D.P. Berry, Peter Løvendahl, N. Krattenmacher, F. Miglior, K.A. Weigel, D.M. Spurlock, K.A. Macdonald, B. Hulsegge, R.F. Veerkamp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, UK Government
KeywordsHeritabilityBiologyHerdRestricted maximum likelihoodGenomic selectionBrown SwissAnimal sciencePopulationDry matterDairy cattleSingle-nucleotide polymorphismTraitGenetic correlationBest linear unbiased predictionQuantitative trait locusGenotypeGenetic variationStatisticsGeneticsSelection (genetic algorithm)DemographyMaximum likelihoodMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the aim of increasing the accuracy of genomic estimated breeding values for dry matter intake (DMI) in Holstein-Friesian dairy cattle, data from 10 research herds in Europe, North America, and Australasia were combined. The DMI records were available on 10,701 parity 1 to 5 records from 6,953 cows, as well as on 1,784 growing heifers. Predicted DMI at 70 d in milk was used as the phenotype for the lactating animals, and the average DMI measured during a 60- to 70-d test period at approximately 200 d of age was used as the phenotype for the growing heifers. After editing, there were 583,375 genetic markers obtained from either actual high-density single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) genotypes or imputed from 54,001 marker SNP genotypes. Genetic correlations between the populations were estimated using genomic REML. The accuracy of genomic prediction was evaluated for the following scenarios: (1) within-country only, by fixing the correlations among populations to zero, (2) using near-unity correlations among populations and assuming the same trait in each population, and (3) a sharing data scenario using estimated genetic correlations among populations. For these 3 scenarios, the data set was divided into 10 sub-populations stratified by progeny group of sires; 9 of these sub-populations were used (in turn) for the genomic prediction and the tenth was used for calculation of the accuracy (correlation adjusted for heritability). A fourth scenario to quantify the benefit for countries that do not record DMI was investigated (i.e., having an entire country as the validation population and excluding this country in the development of the genomic predictions). The optimal scenario, which was sharing data, resulted in a mean prediction accuracy of 0.44, ranging from 0.37 (Denmark) to 0.54 (the Netherlands). Assuming near-unity among-country genetic correlations, the mean accuracy of prediction dropped to 0.40, and the mean within-country accuracy was 0.30. If no records were available in a country, the accuracy based on the other populations ranged from 0.23 to 0.53 for the milking cows, but were only 0.03 and 0.19 for Australian and New Zealand heifers, respectively; the overall mean prediction accuracy was 0.37. Therefore, there is a benefit in collaboration, because phenotypic information for DMI from other countries can be used to augment the accuracy of genomic evaluations of individual countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.042

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations67
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Dairy ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207