MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3094217936 · doi:10.3390/ani10111958

Fatty Acid Profiles from Routine Milk Recording as a Decision Tool for Body Weight Change of Dairy Cows after Calving

2020· article· en· W3094217936 on OpenAlexaff
Franziska Dettmann, D. Warner, Bart Buitenhuis, Morten Kargo, Anne Mette Kjeldsen, Niels Henning Nielsen, Daniel Lefebvre, D.E. Santschi

Bibliographic record

VenueAnimals · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicReproductive Physiology in Livestock
Canadian institutionsSte. Anne's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMilkingLactationIce calvingAnimal scienceHerdFatty acidChemistryBiologyPregnancyBiochemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cows mobilize body reserves during early lactation, which is reflected in the milk fatty acid (FA) profile. Milk FA can be routinely predicted by Fourier-transform infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy, and be, thus, used to develop an early indicator for bodyweight change (BWC) in early lactating cows in commercial dairy farms. Cow records from 165 herds in Denmark between 2015 and 2017 were used with bodyweight (BW) records at each milking from floor scales in automatic milking systems. Milk FA in monthly test-day samples was predicted by FTIR. Predictions of BWC were based on a random forest model and included parity, stage of lactation, and test day milk production and components (fat, protein, and FA). Bodyweight loss was mainly explained by decreased short-chain FA (C4:0–C10:0) and increased C18:0 FA. The root mean square error (RMSE) of prediction after cross-validation was 1.79 g/kg of BW (R2 of 0.94). Model evaluation with previously unseen BWC records resulted in reduced prediction performance (RMSE of 2.33 g/kg of BW; R2 of 0.31). An early warning system may be implemented for cows with a large BW loss during early lactation based on milk FA profiles, but model performance should be improved, ideally by using the full FTIR milk spectra.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.221 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnimalsSame topicReproductive Physiology in LivestockFrench-language works237,207