Impact of including information from bulls and their daughters in the training population of multiple‐step genomic evaluations in dairy cattle: A simulation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of accounting for parent average (PA) and genotyped daughters' average (GDA) on the estimation of deregressed estimated breeding values (dEBVs) used as pseudo-phenotypes in multiple-step genomic evaluations. Genomic estimated breeding values (GEBVs) were predicted, in eight different simulated scenarios, using dEBVs calculated based on four methods. These methods included PA and GDA in the dEBV (VR) or only GDA (VRpa) and excluded both PA and GDA from the dEBV with either all information or only information from PA and GDA (JA and NEW, respectively). In general, VR and NEW showed the lowest and highest GEBV reliabilities across scenarios, respectively. Among all deregression methods, VRpa and NEW provided the most consistent bias estimates across the majority of scenarios, and they significantly yielded the least biased GEBVs. Our results indicate that removing PA and GDA information from dEBVs used in multiple-step genomic evaluations can increase the reliability of GEBVs, when both bulls and their daughters are included in the training population.
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".