PSIX-15 Assessment of machine learning algorithms for prediction of Aleutian disease in American mink
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract American mink (Neovison vison) is the major source of fur for the fur industries worldwide and Aleutian disease (AD) is causing severe financial losses to the mink industry. Different methods have been used to diagnose the AD in mink, but the combination of several methods can be the most appropriate approach for the selection of AD resilient mink. Iodine agglutination test (IAT) and counterimmunoelectrophoresis (CIEP) methods are commonly employed in test-and-remove strategy; meanwhile, enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and packed-cell volume (PCV) methods are complementary. However, using multiple methods are expensive; and therefore, hindering the corrected use of AD tests in selection. This research presented the assessments of the AD classification based on machine learning algorithms. The Aleutian disease was tested on 1,830 individuals using these tests in an AD positive mink farm (Canadian Centre for Fur Animal Research, NS, Canada). The accuracy of classification for CIEP was evaluated based on the sex information, and IAT, ELISA and PCV test results implemented in seven machine learning classification algorithms (Random Forest, Artificial Neural Networks, C50Tree, Naive Bayes, Generalized Linear Models, Boost, and Linear Discriminant Analysis) using the Caret package in R. The accuracy of prediction varied among the methods. Overall, the Random Forest was the best-performing algorithm for the current dataset with an accuracy of 0.89 in the training data and 0.94 in the testing data. Our work demonstrated the utility and relative ease of using machine learning algorithms to assess the CIEP information, and consequently reducing the cost of AD tests. However, further works require the inclusion of production and reproduction information in the models and extension of phenotypic collection to increase the accuracy of current methods.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".