ArticleTranslational animal science2026
Recent feeding history drives prediction of daily feed intake in lactating sows.
Article in Translational 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate prediction of feed intake (FI) in lactating sows is essential for precision nutrition, welfare monitoring, and sustainable production. Feed intake during lactation is influenced by both physiological and environmental factors, but the complexity of individual FI makes traditional modeling approaches challenging. Machine learning (ML) provides flexible tools for capturing nonlinear dynamics in sow-feeding datasets. This study evaluated multiple ML algorithms to predict and forecast FI using 17,171 daily observations from 898 lactating sows. Five ML algorithms were tested: Generalized Additive Model (GAM), Elastic Net Regression (ENET), Random Forest (RDF), Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGB), and Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LGB). Predictors included environmental variables (daily maximum air temperature and daily maximum dew point), biological variables (parity and lactation day), and historical data derived from recent FI events (moving averages, lag variables, and intake variability), along with their interactions. An 8:2 sow-level train/test split was employed, along with grouped 5-fold cross-validation (CV) to prevent data leakage. Model performance, feature importance, and forecasting ability were assessed. All models performed similarly, with
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.