Classification of porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome clinical impact in Ontario sow herds using machine learning approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since the early 1990s, porcine reproductive and respiratory syndrome (PRRS) virus outbreaks have been reported across various parts of North America, Europe, and Asia. The incursion of PRRS virus (PRRSV) in swine herds could result in various clinical manifestations, resulting in a substantial impact on the incidence of respiratory morbidity, reproductive loss, and mortality. Veterinary experts, among others, regularly analyze the PRRSV open reading frame-5 (ORF-5) for prognostic purposes to assess the risk of severe clinical outcomes. In this study, we explored if predictive modeling techniques could be used to identify the severity of typical clinical signs observed during PRRS outbreaks in sow herds. Our study aimed to evaluate four baseline machine learning (ML) algorithms: logistic regression (LR) with ridge and lasso regularization techniques, random forest (RF), k-nearest neighbor (KNN), and support vector machine (SVM), for the clinical impact classification of ORF-5 sequences and demographic data into high impact and low impact categories. First, baseline classifiers were evaluated using different input representations of ORF-5 nucleotides, amino acid sequences, and demographic data using a 10-fold cross-validation technique. Then, we designed a consensus voting ensemble approach to aggregate the different types of input representations for genetic and demographic data for classifying clinical impact. In this study, we observed that: (a) for abortion and pre-weaning mortality (PWM), different classifiers gained improvement over baseline accuracy, which showed the plausible presence of both genotypic-phenotypic and demographic-phenotypic relationships, (b) for sow mortality (SM), no baseline classifier successfully established such linkages using either genetic or demographic input data, (c) baseline classifiers showed good performance with a moderate variance of the performance metrics, due to high-class overlap and the small dataset size used for training, and (d) the use of consensus voting ensemble techniques helped to make the predictions more robust and stabilized the performance evaluation metrics, but overall accuracy did not substantially improve the diagnostic metrics over baseline classifiers.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".