MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898634952 · doi:10.3168/jds.2018-15159

Genomic prediction of lactation curves for milk, fat, protein, and somatic cell score in Holstein cattle

2018· article· en· W2898634952 on OpenAlexafffund
Hinayah Rojas de Oliveira, Luiz F. Brito, Ferran Silva, Daniela Lourenço, J. Jamrozik, Flávio S. Schenkel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanadian Dairy CommissionDairy Farmers of Canada
KeywordsBest linear unbiased predictionHolstein CattleContext (archaeology)StatisticsTraitPopulationGenomic selectionDairy cattleLinear regressionSomatic cell countLactationRegressionBiologyRegression analysisReliability (semiconductor)MathematicsSelection (genetic algorithm)Animal scienceGeneticsSingle-nucleotide polymorphismGenotypeDemographyComputer scienceIce calving

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Application of random regression models (RRM) in a 2-step genomic prediction might be a feasible way to select young animals based on the complete pattern of the lactation curve. In this context, the prediction reliability and bias of genomic estimated breeding value (GEBV) for milk, fat, and protein yields and somatic cell score over days in milk (DIM) using a 2-step genomic approach were investigated. In addition, the effect of including cows in the training and validation populations was investigated. Estimated breeding values for each DIM (from 5 to 305 d) from the first 3 lactations of Holstein animals were deregressed and used as pseudophenotypes in the second step. Individual additive genomic random regression coefficients for each trait were predicted using RRM and genomic best linear unbiased prediction and further used to derive GEBV for each DIM. Theoretical reliabilities of GEBV obtained by the RRM were slightly higher than theoretical reliabilities obtained by the accumulated yield up to 305 d (P305). However, validation reliabilities estimated for GEBV using P305 were higher than for GEBV using RRM. For all traits, higher theoretical and validation reliabilities were estimated when incorporating genomic information. Less biased GEBV estimates were found when using RRM compared with P305, and different validation reliability and bias patterns for GEBV over time were observed across traits and lactations. Including cows in the training population increased the theoretical reliabilities and bias of GEBV; nonetheless, the inclusion of cows in the validation population does not seem to affect the regression coefficients and the theoretical reliabilities. In summary, the use of RRM in 2-step genomic prediction produced fairly accurate GEBV over the entire lactation curve for all analyzed traits. Thus, selecting young animals based on the pattern of lactation curves seems to be a feasible alternative in genomic selection of Holstein cattle for milk production traits.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations27
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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