Image_3_Genomic Prediction of Average Daily Gain, Back-Fat Thickness, and Loin Muscle Depth Using Different Genomic Tools in Canadian Swine Populations.JPEG
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Improvement of prediction accuracy of estimated breeding values (EBVs) can lead to increased profitability for swine breeding companies. This study was performed to compare the accuracy of different popular genomic prediction methods and traditional best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) for future performance of back-fat thickness (BFT), average daily gain (ADG), and loin muscle depth (LMD) in Canadian Duroc, Landrace, and Yorkshire swine breeds. In this study, 17,019 pigs were genotyped using Illumina 60K and Affymetrix 50K panels. After quality control and imputation steps, a total of 41,304, 48,580, and 49,102 single-nucleotide polymorphisms remained for Duroc (n = 6,649), Landrace (n = 5,362), and Yorkshire (n = 5,008) breeds, respectively. The breeding values of animals in the validation groups (n = 392–774) were predicted before performance test using BLUP, BayesC, BayesCπ, genomic BLUP (GBLUP), and single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP) methods. The prediction accuracies were obtained using the correlation between the predicted breeding values and their deregressed EBVs (dEBVs) after performance test. The genomic prediction methods showed higher prediction accuracies than traditional BLUP for all scenarios. Although the accuracies of genomic prediction methods were not significantly (P > 0.05) different, ssGBLUP was the most accurate method for Duroc-ADG, Duroc-LMD, Landrace-BFT, Landrace-ADG, and Yorkshire-BFT scenarios, and BayesCπ was the most accurate method for Duroc-BFT, Landrace-LMD, and Yorkshire-ADG scenarios. Furthermore, BayesCπ method was the least biased method for Duroc-LMD, Landrace-BFT, Landrace-ADG, Yorkshire-BFT, and Yorkshire-ADG scenarios. Our findings can be beneficial for accelerating the genetic progress of BFT, ADG, and LMD in Canadian swine populations by selecting more accurate and unbiased genomic prediction methods.</p>
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.263 | 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".