ArticlePeerJ2019
Horse phenotyping based on video image analysis of jumping performance for conservation breeding.
Article in PeerJ, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany horse breeds in the world are reserved as genetic resources; however, their characteristics seem to be insufficiently clarified, especially in terms of horse performance. Two jumping ability evaluation methods have been used to compare different types of performance breeds and on this basis their applicability for precision phenotyping has been determined.
methodsJumping data of 186 young Polish Warmblood stallions (27 with an endangered status) bred for sport and multipurpose use was collected during their performance tests organised under identical environmental conditions following the same guidelines. Jumping data consisted of objective measurements of free jumping parameters and the marks for jumping. Video recordings of 514 jumps (73 records for 27 stallions with an endangered status) were collected using a digital Panasonic AG-EZ 35 camera (25 fr/sec). Filming was recorded during a free jumping test in the line on a doublebarre obstacle (100-120 cm × 100 cm). Spatial and temporal variables of the jump were measured. The analysis of variance was performed (SAS, General Linear Model and Mixed procedures) using the statistical model, which included the random effect of the horse and fixed effects of the year of test, breeding status, height of jump and the successive number of the jump for objective kinematic data. The fixed effects of the year of test and breeding status were included in the model for subjective performance test data.
resultsPerformance marks for free jumping were lower in the endangered group of stallions in the trainers' opinion ( DISCUSSION: The use of objective evaluation methods provides important information for practice, as phenotypic differences between horses may be unclear in the subjective evaluation. The objective evaluation should be used to characterise the performance potential of different breeds, because the information from the evaluators might not be consistent. Such characteristics should be recorded at least for every new population.
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.