MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3206488523 · doi:10.1093/jas/skab235.477

PSXV-1 Genetic evaluation of longevity of cows culled due to fertility-related problems using random regression models and censored data

2021· article· en· W3206488523 on OpenAlexaff
Hinayah Rojas de Oliveira, Stephen P. Miller, Luiz F. Brito, Flávio S. Schenkel

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCullingLongevityFertilityIce calvingBiologyDemographyStatisticsTraitRegression analysisHerdAnimal scienceMathematicsComputer sciencePopulationGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A recent study showed that longevity based on different culling reasons should be considered as different traits in genetic evaluations. However, it is still necessary to create a pipeline that avoid including/excluding animals culled for different reasons in every genetic evaluation run. This study aimed to: 1) perform a genetic evaluation of the longevity of cows culled due to fertility-related problems including records of animals culled for other reasons (i.e., age, structural problems, disease, and performance) as censored records; and, 2) identify the impact of censored data in the genetic parameters and breeding values estimated. Two longevity indicators were evaluated: traditional (TL; time from first calving to culling) and functional (FL; time period in which the cow was alive and also calving after its first calving) longevity. Both TL and FL were evaluated from 2 to 15 years-old, and codified as binary traits for each age (0 = culled and 1 = alive/calved). Both trait definitions were analyzed using a Bayesian random regression linear model. Animals culled for reasons other than fertility were either excluded from the data (standard) or had their records censored after the culling date reported in the dataset (censored). After the quality control, 154,419 and 450,124 animals had uncensored and censored records, respectively. Heritabilities estimated for TL over the ages ranged from 0.02 to 0.13 for standard, and from 0.01 to 0.12 for censored datasets. Heritabilities estimated for FL ranged from 0.01 to 0.14 (standard), and from 0.01 to 0.13 (censored). Average (SD) correlation of breeding values predicted over all ages, using the standard and censored datasets, was 0.77 (0.16) for TL, and 0.83 (0.11) for FL. Our findings suggest that including censored data in the analyses might impact the genomic evaluations and further work is need to determine the optimal predictive approach.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.268 · 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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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