↓ Skip to main content

Predicting expected progeny difference for marbling score in Angus cattle using artificial neural networks and Bayesian regression models

Overview of attention for article published in Genetics Selection Evolution, September 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
48 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
56 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predicting expected progeny difference for marbling score in Angus cattle using artificial neural networks and Bayesian regression models
Published in
Genetics Selection Evolution, September 2013
DOI 10.1186/1297-9686-45-34
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hayrettin Okut, Xiao-Liao Wu, Guilherme JM Rosa, Stewart Bauck, Brent W Woodward, Robert D Schnabel, Jeremy F Taylor, Daniel Gianola

Abstract

Artificial neural networks (ANN) mimic the function of the human brain and are capable of performing massively parallel computations for data processing and knowledge representation. ANN can capture nonlinear relationships between predictors and responses and can adaptively learn complex functional forms, in particular, for situations where conventional regression models are ineffective. In a previous study, ANN with Bayesian regularization outperformed a benchmark linear model when predicting milk yield in dairy cattle or grain yield of wheat. Although breeding values rely on the assumption of additive inheritance, the predictive capabilities of ANN are of interest from the perspective of their potential to increase the accuracy of prediction of molecular breeding values used for genomic selection. This motivated the present study, in which the aim was to investigate the accuracy of ANN when predicting the expected progeny difference (EPD) of marbling score in Angus cattle. Various ANN architectures were explored, which involved two training algorithms, two types of activation functions, and from 1 to 4 neurons in hidden layers. For comparison, BayesCπ models were used to select a subset of optimal markers (referred to as feature selection), under the assumption of additive inheritance, and then the marker effects were estimated using BayesCπ with π set equal to zero. This procedure is referred to as BayesCpC and was implemented on a high-throughput computing cluster.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 56 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 4%
France 1 2%
Indonesia 1 2%
United Kingdom 1 2%
Uruguay 1 2%
Unknown 50 89%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Researcher 8 14%
Student > Master 8 14%
Other 5 9%
Student > Bachelor 4 7%
Other 14 25%
Unknown 8 14%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 24 43%
Engineering 8 14%
Computer Science 6 11%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 5%
Mathematics 1 2%
Other 6 11%
Unknown 8 14%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 September 2013.
All research outputs
#17,285,036
of 25,371,288 outputs
Outputs from Genetics Selection Evolution
#550
of 822 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,202
of 210,811 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Genetics Selection Evolution
#3
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,371,288 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 822 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 210,811 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.