Assessing the accuracy of imputation in the Gyr breed using different SNP panels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of imputation in a Gyr population using two medium-density panels (Bos taurus - Bos indicus) and to test whether the inclusion of the Nellore breed increases the imputation accuracy in the Gyr population. The database consisted of 289 Gyr females from Brazil genotyped with the GGP Bovine LDv4 chip containing 30 000 SNPs and 158 Gyr females from Colombia genotyped with the GGP indicus chip containing 35 000 SNPs. A customized chip was created that contained the information of 9109 SNPs (9K) to test the imputation accuracy in Gyr populations; 604 Nellore animals with information of LD SNPs tested in the scenarios were included in the reference population. Four scenarios were tested: LD9K_30KGIR, LD9K_35INDGIR, LD9K_30KGIR_NEL, and LD9K_35INDGIR_NEL. Principal component analysis (PCA) was computed for the genomic matrix and sample-specific imputation accuracies were calculated using Pearson’s correlation (CS) and the concordance rate (CR) for imputed genotypes. The results of PCA of the Colombian and Brazilian Gyr populations demonstrated the genomic relationship between the two populations. The CS and CR ranged from 0.88 to 0.94 and from 0.93 to 0.96, respectively. Among the scenarios tested, the highest CS (0.94) was observed for the LD9K_30KGIR scenario. The present results highlight the importance of the choice of chip for imputation in the Gyr breed. However, the variation in SNPs may reduce the imputation accuracy even when the chip of the Bos indicus subspecies is used.
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 | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".