Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41718905›Full record

ArticleTropical animal health and production2026

AI-Driven prediction of body weight in chicken genotypes with different growth rates.

Aliyu Abduljalal Musa, Zulkifli Idrus, Eric Lim Teik Chung, Noraini Samat, Rabiu Aliyu Abdulkadir, Rotimi Emmanuel Abayomi, Asep Setiaji, Kamalludin Mamat-Hamidi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Tropical animal health and production, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Aliyu Abduljalal MusaDepartment of Animal Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, 43400, Malaysia.
Zulkifli IdrusDepartment of Animal Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, 43400, Malaysia.
Eric Lim Teik ChungDepartment of Animal Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, 43400, Malaysia.
Noraini SamatLivestock Science Research Centre, MARDI Headquarters, Persiaran MARDI-UPM, Serdang, 43400, Malaysia.
Rabiu Aliyu AbdulkadirDepartment of Electrical Engineering, Kano University of Science and Technology, Wudil, Kano, Nigeria.
Rotimi Emmanuel AbayomiDepartment of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Federal University, Dutsin-Ma, Katsina State, 5100, Nigeria.
Asep SetiajiDepartment of Animal Science, Faculty of Animal and Agricultural Sciences, Universitas Diponegoro, Semarang, Central Java, 50275, Indonesia.
Kamalludin Mamat-HamidiDepartment of Animal Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang, 43400, Malaysia. mamath@upm.edu.my.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9728-8212

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study evaluates four machine learning algorithms: Gaussian Exponential Regression (GER), Feedforward Neural Networks (FFNN), Support Vector Machines (SVM), and Decision Trees (DT) for predicting body weight in chickens with different growth rates (slow-, medium-, and fast-growing breeds). It fills a major research gap by benchmarking these models under uniform conditions across multiple growth categories. Starting at 14 days of age, 300 male chicks (100 of the genotypes SAGA, Sasso, and Cobb 500, which represent slow-, medium-, and fast-growing breeds, respectively) were used in a controlled experiment. Weekly body weight and six (6) morphometric traits were recorded for four weeks and split into training (75%) and validation (25%) sets. A total of 2,160 data records were obtained from weekly morphometric measurements across 300 birds. Model performance was measured by correlation coefficient (R), coefficient of determination (R²), root mean square error (RMSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and mean absolute percentage error (MAPE). Across all growth groups, GER consistently performed better than other models, exhibiting the highest accuracy and lowest errors. FFNN performed well for slow- and medium-growing breeds but showed increased errors for fast-growing Cobb 500. SVM and DT had the poorest results, with higher errors and poor generalizability. Model accuracy was ranked as follows: GER > FFNN > DT/SVM. This study provides recommendations for selecting machine learning models tailored to specific chicken growth rates for accurate weight prediction. Future work should validate these findings on commercial farms and explore hybrid models to improve robustness. GER’s superior performance highlights its potential as a reliable and efficient tool for precision poultry farming.

Indexed as

Body WeightChickensMachine LearningAnimalsBreedingGenotypeMalePrediction AlgorithmsPredictive Learning ModelsSoft ComputingSupport Vector MachineBody weight predictionDiverse chicken breedsMachine learningPoultry managementPrecision livestock farming

Identifiers

PMID41718905
PMCPMC12923440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.