ReviewBiology2026
Evolution of Methods for the Quantitative Assessment of Inbreeding in Livestock.
Review in Biology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Inbreeding is a quantitative measure of autozygosity that underlies the assessment of genetic risks and the management of genetic progress in livestock populations. The development of methods for its estimation reflects a transition from probabilistic pedigree-based models to the direct analysis of genome structure. This review systematizes the evolution of approaches to inbreeding assessment-from the classical inbreeding coefficient F based on identity by descent (IBD) to marker-based, segment-based runs of homozygosity (ROH) and probabilistic homozygous-by-descent (HBD) models. It is shown that the coefficients F_ped, F_GRM, F_ROH, and F_HBD capture related but distinct aspects of autozygosity and are therefore not fully interchangeable. Particular attention is paid to the transition from integral indicators to spatially and temporally stratified analyses of autozygosity, enabling the differentiation between ancient and recent inbreeding. Methodological assumptions, limitations, and the sensitivity of various approaches to marker density, detection parameters, and population demographic structure are discussed. A comparative analysis of methods for calculating F_ROH and segment-based autozygosity is presented. The necessity of a comprehensive assessment of inbreeding and the standardization of analytical protocols for its application in modern breeding programs is substantiated.
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.