289 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 24024641)
1. Predicting expected progeny difference for marbling score in Angus cattle using artificial neural networks and Bayesian regression models.
Okut H; Wu XL; Rosa GJ; Bauck S; Woodward BW; Schnabel RD; Taylor JF; Gianola D
Genet Sel Evol; 2013 Sep; 45(1):34. PubMed ID: 24024641
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
2. Predicting complex quantitative traits with Bayesian neural networks: a case study with Jersey cows and wheat.
Gianola D; Okut H; Weigel KA; Rosa GJ
BMC Genet; 2011 Oct; 12():87. PubMed ID: 21981731
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
3. Application of neural networks with back-propagation to genome-enabled prediction of complex traits in Holstein-Friesian and German Fleckvieh cattle.
Ehret A; Hochstuhl D; Gianola D; Thaller G
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Mar; 47(1):22. PubMed ID: 25886037
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
4. Predicting dry matter intake in Canadian Holstein dairy cattle using milk mid-infrared reflectance spectroscopy and other commonly available predictors via artificial neural networks.
Shadpour S; Chud TCS; Hailemariam D; Oliveira HR; Plastow G; Stothard P; Lassen J; Baldwin R; Miglior F; Baes CF; Tulpan D; Schenkel FS
J Dairy Sci; 2022 Oct; 105(10):8257-8271. PubMed ID: 36055837
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
5. Improving genomic prediction accuracy for meat tenderness in Nellore cattle using artificial neural networks.
Brito Lopes F; Magnabosco CU; Passafaro TL; Brunes LC; Costa MFO; Eifert EC; Narciso MG; Rosa GJM; Lobo RB; Baldi F
J Anim Breed Genet; 2020 Sep; 137(5):438-448. PubMed ID: 32020678
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
6. Accuracy of predicting genomic breeding values for carcass merit traits in Angus and Charolais beef cattle.
Chen L; Vinsky M; Li C
Anim Genet; 2015 Feb; 46(1):55-9. PubMed ID: 25393962
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
7. Accuracy of predicting genomic breeding values for residual feed intake in Angus and Charolais beef cattle.
Chen L; Schenkel F; Vinsky M; Crews DH; Li C
J Anim Sci; 2013 Oct; 91(10):4669-78. PubMed ID: 24078618
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
8. A comparison of five methods to predict genomic breeding values of dairy bulls from genome-wide SNP markers.
Moser G; Tier B; Crump RE; Khatkar MS; Raadsma HW
Genet Sel Evol; 2009 Dec; 41(1):56. PubMed ID: 20043835
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
9. Application of Bayesian least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) and BayesCπ methods for genomic selection in French Holstein and Montbéliarde breeds.
Colombani C; Legarra A; Fritz S; Guillaume F; Croiseau P; Ducrocq V; Robert-Granié C
J Dairy Sci; 2013 Jan; 96(1):575-91. PubMed ID: 23127905
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
10. Comparison of methods for the implementation of genome-assisted evaluation of Spanish dairy cattle.
Jiménez-Montero JA; González-Recio O; Alenda R
J Dairy Sci; 2013 Jan; 96(1):625-34. PubMed ID: 23102955
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
11. Genome-enabled prediction of meat and carcass traits using Bayesian regression, single-step genomic best linear unbiased prediction and blending methods in Nelore cattle.
Lopes FB; Baldi F; Passafaro TL; Brunes LC; Costa MFO; Eifert EC; Narciso MG; Rosa GJM; Lobo RB; Magnabosco CU
Animal; 2021 Jan; 15(1):100006. PubMed ID: 33516009
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
12. Comparison of genomic predictions using genomic relationship matrices built with different weighting factors to account for locus-specific variances.
Su G; Christensen OF; Janss L; Lund MS
J Dairy Sci; 2014 Oct; 97(10):6547-59. PubMed ID: 25129495
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
13. Accuracy of prediction of simulated polygenic phenotypes and their underlying quantitative trait loci genotypes using real or imputed whole-genome markers in cattle.
Hassani S; Saatchi M; Fernando RL; Garrick DJ
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Dec; 47():99. PubMed ID: 26698091
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
14. Multibreed genomic prediction using multitrait genomic residual maximum likelihood and multitask Bayesian variable selection.
Calus MPL; Goddard ME; Wientjes YCJ; Bowman PJ; Hayes BJ
J Dairy Sci; 2018 May; 101(5):4279-4294. PubMed ID: 29550121
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
15. Accuracy of Igenity genomically estimated breeding values for predicting Australian Angus BREEDPLAN traits.
Boerner V; Johnston D; Wu XL; Bauck S
J Anim Sci; 2015 Feb; 93(2):513-21. PubMed ID: 25549982
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
16. Use of a Bayesian model including QTL markers increases prediction reliability when test animals are distant from the reference population.
Ma P; Lund MS; Aamand GP; Su G
J Dairy Sci; 2019 Aug; 102(8):7237-7247. PubMed ID: 31155255
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
17. Interpretable artificial neural networks incorporating Bayesian alphabet models for genome-wide prediction and association studies.
Zhao T; Fernando R; Cheng H
G3 (Bethesda); 2021 Sep; 11(10):. PubMed ID: 34499126
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
18. Comparison of Bayesian models to estimate direct genomic values in multi-breed commercial beef cattle.
Rolf MM; Garrick DJ; Fountain T; Ramey HR; Weaber RL; Decker JE; Pollak EJ; Schnabel RD; Taylor JF
Genet Sel Evol; 2015 Apr; 47(1):23. PubMed ID: 25884158
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Genomic prediction of simulated multibreed and purebred performance using observed fifty thousand single nucleotide polymorphism genotypes.
Kizilkaya K; Fernando RL; Garrick DJ
J Anim Sci; 2010 Feb; 88(2):544-51. PubMed ID: 19820059
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
20. Accuracy of genomic breeding values for meat tenderness in Polled Nellore cattle.
Magnabosco CU; Lopes FB; Fragoso RC; Eifert EC; Valente BD; Rosa GJ; Sainz RD
J Anim Sci; 2016 Jul; 94(7):2752-60. PubMed ID: 27482662
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
