ArticleJournal of animal science2026
Scaling linear-model breeding values to the liability scale: an application to pig binary traits.
Article in Journal of 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In commercial pig production, many important traits are recorded as binary phenotypes. For such traits, threshold models offer an appropriate framework but are computationally intensive. Thus, linear models are widely used to obtain genomic estimated breeding values (GEBV); however, these are on the observed scale (phenotypic). This creates the need for a robust method to approximate GEBV from linear models to the liability scale. A recently proposed approximation showed good concordance for low-prevalence traits (<5%) but has not yet been tested for a wider range of prevalence values and for models with more than one random effect. We aimed to evaluate the performance of this approximation for pig binary traits with prevalences ranging from <5% to >86%, in both animal and maternal animal models. Data were available for five fitness traits (FT1-FT5), with up to 233k animals with phenotypes, of which 204k animals were genotyped with a 25k SNP array. Variance component estimates were obtained using threshold models. Classical animal models were used for FT1-FT3, and maternal animal models for FT4 and FT5. Variance components on the observed scale were then obtained by multiplying estimates from a threshold model by the square of the height of the standard normal density evaluated at the threshold. GEBV were predicted using single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction under both linear and threshold models. The approximation tested involved scaling the GEBV using the height of the ordinate of the standard normal distribution evaluated at the threshold as a scaling factor. The agreement between GEBV from the scaled linear model and the threshold model on the probability scale was evaluated using Pearson and Spearman correlations, mean squared error (MSE), regression parameters, overlapping coefficient (OVL), distribution overlap, and classification accuracy (CACC). Correlations between linear and threshold GEBV ranged from 0.94 (low-prevalence traits) to 0.99 (high-prevalence traits) for the direct GEBV and were 0.99 for the maternal GEBV. MSE were close to zero. The OVL exceeded 0.83 for all traits. CACC ranged from 95.10% to 98.33% for the direct GEBV and from 92.54% to 97.42% for the maternal GEBV. Regardless of model and trait prevalence, this approximation yielded GEBV that are highly consistent with threshold model GEBV, providing a reliable, practical approach for large-scale pig genetic evaluations for binary traits using linear models.
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.