MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2966135339 · doi:10.1093/jas/skz122.293

PSIII-8 Genomic prediction of reproductive performance of commercial sows in health challenged herds

2019· article· en· W2966135339 on OpenAlexaffabout
Cassandra Scanlan, PigGen Canada, Benny E Mote, Philip Willson, John C. S. Harding, Graham Plastow, Jack C. M. Dekkers, Nick V. L. Serão

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeritabilityParity (physics)TraitHerdCrossbreedBest linear unbiased predictionAnimal scienceBiologyCovariateStatisticsVeterinary medicineMathematicsGeneticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The objective of this study was to perform genomic predictions for reproductive performance of sows under natural health challenge. Reproductive performance (1 to 4 parities) and genotype (~40K SNPs) were available for 2,604 crossbred sows, for a total of 7,635 farrowing records. Animals from 17 high-health multipliers from 7 breeding companies (PigGen Canada) were shipped to 23 commercial farms with recent history of common infectious diseases. Gilts entered farms with an average of 53 animals per contemporary group (CG). Traits included total number of piglets: born (TB), born alive (NBA), stillborn (SB), mummified (MUM), born dead (NBD), and weaned (NW). Genomic predictions were performed using Bayes-B (pi=0.995) with a seven-fold cross-validation using each company in turn for validation and the others for training. The model included the effects of CG (fixed) and SNP (random), and net number of fosters (covariate) for NW. Genomic predictions were done for animal lifetime performance (sum performance of parities) for each trait and using first parity performance as the training set to predict subsequent parity performance. Accuracy was calculated as the weighted average correlation between GEBV and adjusted phenotype across validation sets divided by the square root of heritability. Lifetime performance accuracies were low to moderate, ranging from 0.11 (TB) to 0.45 (NBD). Accuracies using parity 1 to predict subsequent performance were low, ranging from -0.07 (SB in parity 3) to 0.19 (NBD in parity 2), with average accuracies per trait ranging from 0.04 (SB) to 0.16 (NBD).Although most accuracies were low, the moderately high accuracies for some lifetime performance shows that genomic prediction can be used to improve performance under natural health challenge in sows. We appreciate the financial support of PigGen Canada, Canadian Swine Health Board, Genome Alberta and Swine Innovation Porc, and the late Dr. Stephen Bishop for his scientific contributions.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal Science→Same topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock→French-language works237,207→