Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37317891›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science2023

An update of the predicted lean yield equation for the Destron PG-100 optical grading probe.

Benjamin M Bohrer, Yifei Wang, Justice B Dorleku, Cheryl P Campbell, Ira B Mandell

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of animal science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Benjamin M BohrerDepartment of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Yifei WangDepartment of Animal Sciences, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210, USA.
Justice B DorlekuDepartment of Food Science, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada.
Cheryl P CampbellDepartment of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada.
Ira B MandellDepartment of Animal Biosciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario N1G 2W1, Canada.
University of Guelph · CAThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

Conestoga Meat Packers, LtdNatural Science and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) of Canada
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The objective was to update the equation used for prediction of pork carcass leanness with the Destron PG-100 optical grading probe. A recent cutout study (completed in 2020-2021) consisting of 337 pork carcasses was used for this research. An updated equation was generated using a calibration dataset (N = 188 carcasses) and prediction precision and prediction accuracy of the new equation was evaluated using a validation dataset (N = 149 carcasses). The updated equation was generated using forward stepwise multiple regression selection techniques in PROC REG of SAS, and the same parameters as the existing equation were used to fit the model. The updated Destron equation [89.16298 - (1.63023 × backfat thickness) - (0.42126 × muscle depth) + (0.01930 × backfat thickness2) + (0.00308 × muscle depth2) + (0.00369 × backfat thickness × muscle depth)] and the existing Destron equation [68.1863 - (0.7833 × backfat thickness) + (0.0689 × muscle depth) + (0.0080 × backfat thickness2) - (0.0002 × muscle depth2) + (0.0006 × backfat thickness × muscle depth)] were similar in their prediction precision for determination of carcass lean yield (LY), with the updated equation R2 = 0.75 and root mean square error (RMSE) = 1.97 and the existing equation R2 = 0.75 and RMSE = 1.94. However, when prediction accuracy was evaluated using the variance explained by predictive models based on cross-validation (VEcv) and Legates and McCabe's efficiency coefficient (E1), the updated equation (VEcv = 67.97%; E1 = 42.41%) was much more accurate compared with the existing equation (VEcv = -117.53%; E1 = -69.24%). Furthermore, when accuracy was evaluated by separating carcasses into 3% carcass LY groupings ranging from less than 50% LY to greater than 62% LY, the existing equation correctly estimated carcass LY 8.1% of the time, while the updated equation correctly estimated carcass LY 47.7% of the time. In an effort to further compare the abilities of the updated equation, comparisons were made with an advanced automated ultrasonic scanner (AutoFom III), which scans the entire carcass. The prediction precision of the AutoFom III was R2 = 0.83 and RMSE = 1.61, while the AutoFom III correctly estimated carcass LY 38.2% of the time and prediction accuracy calculations for the AutoFom III were VEcv = 44.37% and E1 = 21.34%). Overall, refinement of the Destron PG-100 predicted LY equation did not change prediction precision, but substantially improved prediction accuracy.

Indexed as

Body CompositionMeatAdipose TissueAnimalsMusclesRegression AnalysisResearch Designcarcass leannessDestronleanness predictionoptical grading probepork carcassprediction equation

Identifiers

PMID37317891
PMCPMC10313092
OpenAlexW4380729635

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.