MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414087240 · doi:10.3389/fvets.2025.1628161

Breeding values and index creation for health and behavior traits in Labrador Retriever guide dogs

2025· article· en· W4414087240 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joseph A. Thorsrud, Katy M. Evans, Charlotte Quigley, Krishnamoorthy Srikanth, Antônio Reverter, Laércio R. Porto-Neto, Heather J. Huson

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Veterinary Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHuman-Animal Interaction Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLabrador RetrieverTraitSelection (genetic algorithm)PopulationIndex (typography)USableHomogeneousAnimal health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Genomic breeding values and multi-trait selection indices have significantly advanced genetic improvement in livestock but remain underutilized in guide dog breeding. This study developed a genomically informed selection framework for a population of Labrador Retrievers by integrating health (e.g., dental, ocular, and dermatological conditions) and behavioral (e.g., trainability, distraction level, pace) traits into a "Behavior Score," "Health Score," and "Total Score" index by applying Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (GBLUP) to estimate breeding values. Results: Phenotypic and genotypic data were collected from 844 dogs over 26 years at The Seeing Eye guide dog school. Predictive performance was evaluated via five-fold cross-validation and correlation-based metrics. Results showed that some dentition related health traits exhibited moderate to high Area Under Receiving Operating Characteristic (AUROC) values (0.79-0.87), indicating potential for immediate use for genetic improvement. In contrast, most other health traits demonstrated weak to moderate predictive accuracy. Behavioral traits exhibited lower predictive accuracy but showed a stronger association with training success. Models were commonly unable to correctly classify individuals for binary or ordinal traits yet performed well in ranking individuals, likely due to lower heritability or strong environmental influences of traits or limitations of the dataset itself. The behavior-focused Total Score (AUROC ~0.72) outperformed health-based indices as a fixed effect in predicting breeding success despite the weaker predictive ability of individual behavioral traits. Incorporating parental scores as fixed effects modestly improved breeding values for success, indicating the importance of integrating additional data sources where available. Discussion: While these findings underscore the utility of genomic selection for guide dog breeding, they also highlight constraints stemming from small, genetically homogeneous populations and variable phenotyping. Ultimately, we provide the first usable individual and multi-trait genomic approaches to enhance both health and performance outcomes in working dog programs and a foundation to expand upon the reference population and behavioral trait assessment to improve prediction accuracy in the future.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.356 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in Veterinary ScienceSame topicHuman-Animal Interaction StudiesFrench-language works237,207