ArticleTropical animal health and production2025
Random regression in comparison with finite-dimensional models for estimation of genetic parameters for growth traits in goats.
Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The application of the random regression model in comparison with finite-dimensional models (univariate and multivariate animal models) for genetic parameter estimation of growth traits in goats was evaluated in this study. A total of 2888 body weight records from 875 animals, recorded from birth to yearling age were used. All models included direct additive genetic and maternal genetic effects as a random effect in addition to fixed effects. Random regression model (RRM) was fitted with different orders (1st - 3rd) of Legendre polynomials and accounted for both homogeneous and heterogeneous residual variance. The best-fitting RRM had a polynomial of three orders for both random effects. The direct heritability estimate obtained via RRM was moderate to high, while it varied from 0.00 ± 0.08 to 0.36 ± 0.10 in finite dimensional models. A lower standard error of heritability and genetic correlation estimates was observed with RRM compared to multivariate (MUV) and univariate (UNI) analysis. Likewise, high accuracy and reliability of breeding value estimates are obtained via RRM, whereas the accuracy for MUV and UNI animal models were moderate and low to moderate, respectively. Based on standard errors, accuracy, and reliability of estimates, RRM seems versatile for genetic evaluation of growth traits of goats. However, the MUV animal model is the best-fitting model, according to the information criteria values. Thus, for small and less frequently measured data set, multivariate animal model seems good. Further studies with large and frequently measured body weight data sets may help ensure random regression's applicability and differentiate it from finite-dimensional models.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40088305What 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.