MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W337878582 · doi:10.2527/2002.80112817x

Weaning, yearling, and preharvest ultrasound measures of fat andmuscle area in steers, bulls, and heifers1

2002· article· en· W337878582 on OpenAlexaff
D. H. Crews, N. H. Shannon, R. E. Crews, Roslyn A. Kemp

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrasoundWeaningAnimal scienceLongissimus musclePreharvestBiologyBeef cattleIntramuscular fatZeranolUltrasonographyMedicineSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Longissimus muscle area and fat thickness were measured following weaning, at yearling, and prior to harvest using real-time ultrasound, and corresponding carcass measurements were recorded 3 to 7 d following the preharvest scan in composite steers (n = 116, 447 +/- 19 d), bulls (n = 224, 521 +/- 11 d), and heifers (n = 257,532 +/- 12 d). Although fat deposition was limited in bulls and heifers from weaning to yearling, coefficients of variation ranged from 8.46 to 13.46% for muscle area, and from 27.55 to 38.95% for fat thickness, indicating that significant phenotypic variance exists across genders. Residual correlations, adjusted for the effects of year of birth, gender, and age at measurement, were high and ranged from 0.79 to 0.87 among ultrasound and carcass measures of muscle area. Residual correlations among ultrasound and carcass measures of fat thickness were also high, ranging from 0.64 to 0.86. Weaning and/or yearling ultrasound muscle area yielded similarly accurate predictions of carcass muscle area. Yearling ultrasound fat thickness accounted for 13% more of the observed variance in carcass fat thickness than the weaning ultrasound measure in single-trait prediction models. When both weaning and yearling ultrasound measures were used to predict carcass fat thickness, partial R2 values were 0.15 and 0.61 for weaning and yearling ultrasound fat thickness, respectively. The difference between predicted and carcass measures with respect to muscle area (fat thickness) was less than 6.45 cm2 (2.5 mm) for 80.2 to 88.9% (90.3 to 95%) of animals. Preharvest ultrasound measures yielded standard errors of prediction of less than 4.95 cm2 for muscle area and 1.51 mm or less for fat thickness. These results indicate that ultrasound measures taken between weaning and yearling provide accurate predictors of corresponding carcass traits in steers, bulls, and heifers.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.903
Threshold uncertainty score0.229

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 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

Citations29
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Animal ScienceSame topicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestockFrench-language works237,207