ArticleGenes2026
Impact of Trait Measurement Error on Quantitative Genetic Analysis of Computer Vision-Derived Traits.
Article in Genes, 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
backgroundQuantitative genetic analysis of image- or video-derived phenotypes is increasingly being performed for a wide range of traits. Pig body weight values estimated by a conventional approach or a computer vision system can be considered two different measurements of the same trait but with different sources of phenotyping error. Previous studies have shown that trait measurement error, defined as the difference between manually collected phenotypes and image-derived phenotypes, can be influenced by genetics, suggesting that the error is systematic rather than random and is more likely to lead to misleading quantitative genetic analysis results. Therefore, we investigated the effect of trait measurement error on the genetic analysis of pig body weight (BW).
resultsCalibrated scale-based and image-based BW showed high coefficients of determination and goodness of fit. Genomic heritability estimates for scale-based and image-based BW were mostly identical across growth periods. Genomic heritability estimates for trait measurement error were consistently negligible, regardless of the choice of computer vision algorithm. In addition, genome-wide association analysis revealed no overlap between the top markers identified for scale-based BW and those associated with trait measurement error. Overall, the deep learning-based regressions outperformed the adaptive thresholding segmentation methods.
conclusionThis study showed that manually measured scale-based and image-based BW phenotypes yielded the same quantitative genetic results. We found no evidence that BW trait measurement error could be influenced, at least in part, by genetic factors. This suggests that trait measurement error in pig BW does not contain systematic errors that could bias downstream genetic analysis.
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.