Prediction of stress responses in goats: comparison of artificial neural network and multiple regression models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was conducted to determine if artificial neural networks (ANN) can be used to more accurately predict physiological stress responses in goats compared with statistical regression. Prediction models were developed for plasma cortisol and glucose concentrations, creatine kinase (CK) activity, neutrophil (N) and lymphocyte (L) counts, and N:L ratio as a function of time (0, 1, 2, 3, and 4 h; n = 16 goats per time) after a 2.5 h transportation (input 1) and stocking density (25 vs. 50 goats; input 2). However, input 2 was not included in the final models because density did not have a significant effect. The NeuralWorks Predict® software and SAS were used to develop ANN and regression models, respectively. Backpropagation (BP) and Kalman filter (KF) learning rules were used to develop nonparametric models. Correlations between predicted and observed values were better with ANN-BP (R values = 0.87, 0.67, 0.56, 0.27, 0.42, and 0.53) and ANN-KF (R values = 0.84, 0.67, 0.58, 0.27, 0.42, and 0.50) models for cortisol, glucose, CK, N, L, and N:L ratio, respectively, than with regression models (R values =0.85, 0.52, 0.27, 0.13, 0.31, and 0.12). The results showed that the ANN models can predict responses more robustly compared with statistical regression.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".