MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402540999 · doi:10.1093/jas/skae234.178

510 Utilizing python programming for modern genetic evaluation systems

2024· article· en· W4402540999 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Animal Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPython (programming language)Programming languageComputer scienceGenetic programmingSoftware engineeringComputational biologyBiologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Advancements in agricultural data collection and methodologies for data analysis offer opportunities for beef cattle producers to improve herd genetics. Genetic evaluation systems (GES) can benefit from modern programming approaches to keep up with these advancements. Python, a fast-developing programming language with scientific computing libraries such as NumPy and SciPy, offers flexibility that allows for quick adoption of superior algorithms and new data sources, as well as easy maintenance of the software over the long-term. This study evaluated the use of Python (v3.12.1) for developing a GES capable of executing all the necessary functions expected of modern implementation of GES. A simulated dataset was generated with the R package AlphaSimR to mimic characteristics of the Angus beef cattle breed. The dataset included pedigree information, phenotypic data, and true breeding values (TBVs) for each animal. Phenotypic traits included birth weight (BWT), weaning gain (WG), and post-weaning gain (PWG), with a total of 976,400 animals simulated across 15 generations. The GES software was developed in house, and included components such as data import, pedigree and data preprocessing, calculating inbreeding, constructing the inverse of the numerator relationship matrix, solver initialization, estimation of breeding value, and writing results. The genetic evaluation employed pedigree-based best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) and a multiple-trait animal model, using a preconditioned conjugate gradient iteration algorithm to solve the mixed model equations. Convergence was assessed using the residual vector norm divided by the right-hand-side norm, with a threshold to declare convergence set to 1x10-5. The software was run on a Linux server with an Intel(R) Xeon(R) Gold 6242 CPU @ 2.80GHz, 96 GB of RAM, and eight cores. Accuracy was measured using Pearson correlation coefficient between TBVs and estimated breeding values (EBVs). To benchmark computing time and solutions, the same dataset and model were input into a commonly used commercial GES, MiXBLUP (v3.0.1). The solver was the most time-consuming component of the GES, with a run time of 27 min. However, the application of multiprocessing reduced the run time by 72% to 8 min. The Pearson correlation coefficient between EBV and TBV was 0.86, 0.79, and 0.73 (P < 0.01) for BWT, WG, and PWG, respectively. In contrast, MiXBLUP completed breeding value prediction in less than 1 min. The Pearson correlation coefficient between Python and MiXBLUP predictions was 1.0 (P < 0.01). While Python is an ideal language for modern GES, further updates are necessary to optimize performance and operations. Future research will focus on refining computational algorithms, exploring parallel processing techniques, and enhancing user interfaces to ensure easy integration with industry practices.

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.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.344
Teacher spread0.290 · 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