ArticleJDS communications2026
Computational and modeling approaches for US threshold genetic evaluations of calving ease.
Article in JDS communications, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The US dairy calving ease (CE) genetic evaluation is based on a threshold sire-maternal grandsire (SMGS) model and includes 2 genetic components: one reflecting the sire's direct genetic effect on calving, and the other capturing the maternal influence, modeled through either the dam or the maternal grandsire. This study compared 2 CE evaluation models-SMGS and sire-maternal (SMAT)-using different solving algorithms: Newton-Raphson (NR) and expectation maximization (EM). The analysis used over 24 million CE records provided by the Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding. Correlations of GEBV for phenotyped sires and maternal grandsires were highly consistent across algorithms, exceeding 0.99 within models. The NR algorithm was the most computationally efficient solver, requiring fewer iterations and less computing time than EM. Both SMGS and SMAT models are suitable for routine genetic evaluation of CE in US dairy cattle, with NR and EM offering reliable and efficient solutions for single-trait analysis.
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.