Comparing deregression methods for genomic prediction of test‐day traits in dairy cattle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary We aimed to investigate the performance of three deregression methods (VanRaden, VR; Wiggans, WG; and Garrick, GR) of cows’ and bulls’ breeding values to be used as pseudophenotypes in the genomic evaluation of test‐day dairy production traits. Three scenarios were considered within each deregression method: (i) including only animals with reliability of estimated breeding value (RELEBV ) higher than the average of parent reliability (RELPA ) in the training and validation populations; (ii) including only animals with RELEBV higher than 0.50 in the training and RELEBV higher than RELPA in the validation population; and (iii) including only animals with RELEBV higher than 0.50 in both training and validation populations. Individual random regression coefficients of lactation curves were predicted using the genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP), considering either unweighted or weighted residual variances based on effective records contributions. In summary, VR and WG deregression methods seemed more appropriate for genomic prediction of test‐day traits without need for weighting in the genomic analysis, unless large differences in RELEBV between training population animals exist.
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 | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".