ArticleJournal of animal science2026
Early-life risk factors predicting growth retardation and mortality in pigs: a multi-criteria approach.
Article in Journal of animal science, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Body weight (BW) variability throughout the production cycle remains a major challenge for the swine industry, particularly due to the negative impact of slow-growing pigs on production efficiency and batch uniformity. This study aimed to identify early-life risk factors associated with poor postnatal growth and mortality and to develop a multi-criteria predictive model for classifying pigs based on their early growth and survival potential. Data from 2,138 pigs (Pietrain × [Landrace × Yorkshire]) and 1,115 pigs (Pietrain × [Landrace × Large White]), collected from two commercial farms, were analyzed. Pigs were monitored from birth to weaning, with detailed records of farrowing traits, BW, body conformation indicators, colostrum intake (CI), and survival outcomes. Body weight on d 7 was the strongest predictor of weaning weight (R2 > 0.60), highlighting the critical influence of the first week on later growth. Logistic regression models were used to classify pigs as either compromised (defined as dead or alive with a BW below the 15th percentile of the BW distribution on d 7 of life and at weaning) or normal. The classification performance of the competing models, as well as the selection of the final model, was evaluated using the area under the curve (AUC) of the receiver operating characteristic curve. Subsequently, the optimal classification threshold was adjusted to balance sensitivity and positive predictive value. The final model, trained on d 7 data, achieved a high AUC (0.910), with BW on d 1, relative BW (RBW) on d 1, CI, and sow parity all significantly associated with the probability of being classified as compromised (P < 0.05). Each 100 g increase in BW on d 1 was associated with a 27.6% decrease in the odds of being compromised. Similarly, greater RBW on d 1 and CI were linked to a reduced risk. Pigs falling within the 10th percentile for BW on d 1, with low CI and negative RBW on d 1, showed the highest probability of being compromised by d 7. The model's robustness was confirmed through consistent performance across datasets. Density plots further validated the model, illustrating clear distributional differences between compromised and normal pigs. These findings suggest that a model based on easily measurable birth-related indicators can reliably identify pigs at risk of poor early-life performance. Such a tool holds strong potential for on-farm application to enhance pig management and reduce BW variability at slaughter.
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.