MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346158935 · doi:10.2527/jas.2015-9581

Random regression models for the prediction of days to weight, ultrasound rib eye area, and ultrasound back fat depth in beef cattle

2015· article· en· W2346158935 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Scott E Speidel, R. K. Peel, D. H. Crews, R. M. Enns

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBeef cattleFeedlotBreedUltrasoundRandom effects modelRegression analysisLinear regressionRegressionPoisson regressionMathematicsAnimal scienceStatisticsFixed effects modelBiologyMedicinePanel dataInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Genetic evaluation research designed to reduce the required days to a specified end point has received very little attention in pertinent scientific literature, given that its economic importance was first discussed in 1957. There are many production scenarios in today's beef industry, making a prediction for the required number of days to a single end point a suboptimal option. Random regression is an attractive alternative to calculate days to weight (DTW), days to ultrasound back fat (DTUBF), and days to ultrasound rib eye area (DTUREA) genetic predictions that could overcome weaknesses of a single end point prediction. The objective of this study was to develop random regression approaches for the prediction of the DTW, DTUREA, and DTUBF. Data were obtained from the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Research Centre, Lethbridge, AB, Canada. Data consisted of records on 1,324 feedlot cattle spanning 1999 to 2007. Individual animals averaged 5.77 observations with weights, ultrasound rib eye area (UREA), ultrasound back fat depth (UBF), and ages ranging from 293 to 863 kg, 73.39 to 129.54 cm, 1.53 to 30.47 mm, and 276 to 519 d, respectively. Random regression models using Legendre polynomials were used to regress age of the individual on weight, UREA, and UBF. Fixed effects in the model included an overall fixed regression of age on end point (weight, UREA, and UBF) nested within breed to account for the mean relationship between age and weight as well as a contemporary group effect consisting of breed of the animal (Angus, Charolais, and Charolais sired), feedlot pen, and year of measure. Likelihood ratio tests were used to determine the appropriate random polynomial order. Use of the quadratic polynomial did not account for any additional genetic variation in days for DTW ( > 0.11), for DTUREA ( > 0.18), and for DTUBF ( > 0.20) when compared with the linear random polynomial. Heritability estimates from the linear random regression for DTW ranged from 0.54 to 0.74, corresponding to end points of 293 and 863 kg, respectively. Heritability for DTUREA ranged from 0.51 to 0.34 and for DTUBF ranged from 0.55 to 0.37. These estimates correspond to UREA end points of 35 and 125 cm and UBF end points of 1.53 and 30 mm, respectively. This range of heritability shows DTW, DTUREA, and DTUBF to be highly heritable and indicates that selection pressure aimed at reducing the number of days to reach a finish weight end point can result in genetic change given sufficient data.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.081

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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