PSVI-8 Meta-regression Analysis to Determine the Relationship Between Growing Pig Body Weight and Variation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The swine industry has been constantly evolving to select animals with improved performance traits and to minimize variation in body weight (BW) in order to meet packer specifications. Therefore, understanding variation presents an opportunity for producers to find strategies that could help reduce, manage, or deal with variation of pigs in a barn. A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by collecting data from multiple studies and available data sets in order to develop prediction equations for coefficient of variation (CV) and standard deviation (SD) as a function of BW. Information regarding BW variation from 16 papers was recorded to provide approximately 204 data points. Together, these data included 117,268 individually weighed pigs with a sample size that ranged from 104 to 4,108 pigs. A random-effects model with study used as a random effect was developed. Observations were weighted using sample size as an estimate for precision on the analysis, where larger data sets accounted for increased accuracy in the model. Regression equations were developed using the nlme package of R to determine the relationship between BW and its variation. Polynomial regression analysis was conducted separately for each variation measurement. When CV was reported in the data set, SD was calculated and vice versa. The resulting prediction equations were: CV (%) = 20.04 – 0.135 × (BW) + 0.00043 × (BW)2, R2=0.79; SD = 0.41 + 0.150 × (BW) - 0.00041 × (BW)2, R2 = 0.95. These equations suggest that there is evidence for a decreasing quadratic relationship between mean CV of a population and BW of pigs whereby the rate of decrease is smaller as mean pig BW increases from birth to market. Conversely, the rate of increase of SD of a population of pigs is smaller as mean pig BW increases from birth to market.
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 | 0.024 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.057 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".