MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4386087028 · doi:10.3168/jds.2023-23290

Usefulness of mid-infrared spectroscopy as a tool to estimate body condition score change from milk samples in intensively fed dairy cows

2023· article· en· W4386087028 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Maria Frizzarin, F. Miglior, D.P. Berry, Isobel Claire Gormley, Christine F. Baes

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Dairy Science · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetic and phenotypic traits in livestock
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersGenome AlbertaDepartment of Agriculture, Australian GovernmentScience Foundation IrelandGenome British ColumbiaGenome Canada
KeywordsPartial least squares regressionMathematicsDairy cattleStatisticsAnimal scienceData setBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Directly measuring individual cow energy balance is not trivial. Other traits, like body condition score (BCS) and BCS change (ΔBCS) can, however, be used as an indicator of cow energy status. Body condition score is a metric used world-wide to estimate cow body reserves and the estimation of ΔBCS was, until now, conditional on the availability of multiple BCS assessments. The aim of the present study was to estimate ΔBCS from milk mid-infrared (MIR) spectra and days in milk (DIM) in intensively-fed dairy cows using statistical prediction methods. Daily BCS was interpolated from cubic splines fitted through the BCS records and daily ΔBCS was calculated from these splines. Body condition score change records were merged with milk MIR spectra recorded on the same week. The data set comprised 37,077 ΔBCS phenotypes across 9,403 lactations from 6,988 cows in 151 herds based in Quebec (Canada). Partial least squares regression (PLSR) and a neural network (NN) were then used to estimate ΔBCS from 1) MIR spectra only, 2) DIM only, or 3) MIR spectra and DIM together. ΔBCS data in both the first 120 DIM and 305 DIM of lactation were used to develop the estimates. Daily ΔBCS had a standard deviation of 4.40*10 −3 BCS units in the 120-d data set and of 3.63*10 −3 BCS units in the 305-d data set. 4-fold cross-validation was used to calibrate and test the prediction equations. External validation was also conducted using more recent years of data. Irrespective of whether based on the first 120 or 305 DIM, or when MIR spectra only, DIM only or MIR spectra and DIM were jointly used as prediction variables, NN produced the lowest root mean square error (RMSE) of cross-validation (1.81*10 −3 BCS units and 1.51*10 −3 BCS units, respectively, using the 120-d and 305-d data set). Relative to predictions for the entire 305 DIM, the RMSE of cross-validation was 15.4% and 1.5% lower in the first 120 DIM when using PLSR and NN, respectively. Predictions from DIM only were more accurate than those using just MIR spectra data but, irrespective of the data set and of the prediction model used, the combining DIM information with MIR spectral data as prediction variables reduced the RMSE compared with inclusion of DIM alone, albeit the benefit was small (the RMSE from cross-validation was reduced up to 5.5% when DIM and spectral data were jointly used as model features instead of DIM only). However, when predicting extreme ΔBCS records, the MIR spectral data was more informative than DIM. Model performance when predicting ΔBCS records in future years was similar to that from cross-validation demonstrating the ability of MIR spectra of milk and DIM combined to estimate ΔBCS, particularly in early lactation. This can be used to routinely generate estimates of ΔBCS to aid in day-to-day individual cow management.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.188

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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