Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30239725›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2018

Prediction of slaughter age in pigs and assessment of the predictive value of phenotypic and genetic information using random forest.

Ahmad Alsahaf, George Azzopardi, Bart Ducro, Egiel Hanenberg, Roel F Veerkamp, Nicolai Petkov

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ahmad AlsahafUniversity of Groningen, Bernoulli Institute for Mathematics, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, AK Groningen, The Netherlands.
George AzzopardiUniversity of Groningen, Bernoulli Institute for Mathematics, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, AK Groningen, The Netherlands.
Bart DucroWageningen University & Research, PB Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Egiel HanenbergTopigs Norsvin Research Center, Beuningen, The Netherlands.
Roel F VeerkampWageningen University & Research, PB Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Nicolai PetkovUniversity of Groningen, Bernoulli Institute for Mathematics, Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence, AK Groningen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The weight of a pig and the rate of its growth are key elements in pig production. In particular, predicting future growth is extremely useful, since it can help in determining feed costs, pen space requirements, and the age at which a pig reaches a desired slaughter weight. However, making these predictions is challenging, due to the natural variation in how individual pigs grow, and the different causes of this variation. In this paper, we used machine learning, namely random forest (RF) regression, for predicting the age at which the slaughter weight of 120 kg is reached. Additionally, we used the variable importance score from RF to quantify the importance of different types of input data for that prediction. Data of 32,979 purebred Large White pigs were provided by Topigs Norsvin, consisting of phenotypic data, estimated breeding values (EBVs), along with pedigree and pedigree-genetic relationships. Moreover, we presented a 2-step data reduction procedure, based on random projections (RPs) and principal component analysis (PCA), to extract features from the pedigree and genetic similarity matrices for use as inputs in the prediction models. Our results showed that relevant phenotypic features were the most effective in predicting the output (age at 120 kg), explaining approximately 62% of its variance (i.e., R2 = 0.62). Estimated breeding value, pedigree, or pedigree-genetic features interchangeably explain 2% of additional variance when added to the phenotypic features, while explaining, respectively, 38%, 39%, and 34% of the variance when used separately.

Indexed as

AnimalsBody WeightBreedingModels, BiologicalSwine

Identifiers

PMID30239725
PMCPMC6276566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.