ArticleJournal of animal science2018
Prediction of slaughter age in pigs and assessment of the predictive value of phenotypic and genetic information using random forest.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predicting performance traits in Murrah buffaloes using machine learning: a comparative approach.Tropical animal health and production · 2025Article
- Comprehensive co-expression analysis reveals candidate regulatory genes associated with carcass and meat quality traits in Neijiang and Large White pigs.Animal bioscience · 2025Article
- Improving Efficiency: Automatic Intelligent Weighing System as a Replacement for Manual Pig Weighing.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024Article
- Reconstructing the cytokine view for the multi-view prediction of COVID-19 mortality.BMC infectious diseases · 2023Article
- Application of Machine Learning Algorithms to Describe the Characteristics of Dairy Sheep Lactation Curves.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2023Article
- Predicting phenotypes of beef eating quality traits.Frontiers in genetics · 2023Article
- A Comparative Study of Machine Learning Methods for Predicting Live Weight of Duroc, Landrace, and Yorkshire Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2022Article
- Article
- Boosted trees to predict pneumonia, growth, and meat percentage of growing-finishing pigs1.Journal of animal science · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.