ArticleJournal of animal science and technology2023
Comparison of accuracy of breeding value for cow from three methods in Hanwoo (Korean cattle) population.
Article in Journal of animal science and technology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic breeding value prediction and accuracy assessment for carcass traits in Jeju Black Cattle using Hanwoo reference populations.Animal bioscience · 2026Article
- Recent progress in genomic prediction for Hanwoo cattle and its implications for beef quality: review.Animal bioscience · 2026Article
- Evaluating Adjusted ssGBLUP Models for Genomic Prediction and Matrix Compatibility in South African Holstein Cattle.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Evaluation of genomic breeding values and accuracy for carcass traits in Korean Hanwoo cows using whole-genome SNP chip panels.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 2025Article
- Recent Trends in Food Quality and Authentication: The Role of Omics Technologies in Dairy and Meat Production.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Weighted GBLUP in Simulated Beef Cattle Populations: Impact of Reference Population, Marker Density, and Heritability.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Multi-Omics Approaches to Improve Meat Quality and Taste Characteristics.Food science of animal resources · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In Korea, Korea Proven Bulls (KPN) program has been well-developed. Breeding and evaluation of cows are also an essential factor to increase earnings and genetic gain. This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of cow breeding value by using three methods (pedigree index [PI], pedigree-based best linear unbiased prediction [PBLUP], and genomic-BLUP [GBLUP]). The reference population (n = 16,971) was used to estimate breeding values for 481 females as a test population. The accuracy of GBLUP was 0.63, 0.66, 0.62 and 0.63 for carcass weight (CWT), eye muscle area (EMA), back-fat thickness (BFT), and marbling score (MS), respectively. As for the PBLUP method, accuracy of prediction was 0.43 for CWT, 0.45 for EMA, 0.43 for MS, and 0.44 for BFT. Accuracy of PI method was the lowest (0.28 to 0.29 for carcass traits). The increase by approximate 20% in accuracy of GBLUP method than other methods could be because genomic information may explain Mendelian sampling error that pedigree information cannot detect. Bias can cause reducing accuracy of estimated breeding value (EBV) for selected animals. Regression coefficient between true breeding value (TBV) and GBLUP EBV, PBLUP EBV, and PI EBV were 0.78, 0.625, and 0.35, respectively for CWT. This showed that genomic EBV (GEBV) is less biased than PBLUP and PI EBV in this study. In addition, number of effective chromosome segments (
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.