Comparison of Machine Learning Tree-Based Algorithms to Predict Future Paratuberculosis ELISA Results Using Repeat Milk Tests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Machine learning algorithms have been applied to various animal husbandry and veterinary-related problems; however, its use in Johne's disease diagnosis and control is still in its infancy. The following proof-of-concept study explores the application of tree-based (decision trees and random forest) algorithms to analyze repeat milk testing data from 1197 Canadian dairy cows and the algorithms' ability to predict future Johne's test results. The random forest models using milk component testing results alongside past Johne's results demonstrated a good predictive performance for a future Johne's ELISA result with a dichotomous outcome (positive vs. negative). The final random forest model yielded a kappa of 0.626, a roc AUC of 0.915, a sensitivity of 72%, and a specificity of 98%. The positive predictive and negative predictive values were 0.81 and 0.97, respectively. The decision tree models provided an interpretable alternative to the random forest algorithms with a slight decrease in model sensitivity. The results of this research suggest a promising avenue for future targeted Johne's testing schemes. Further research is needed to validate these techniques in real-world settings and explore their incorporation in prevention and control programs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".