These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Disentangling data dependency using cross-validation strategies to evaluate prediction quality of cattle grazing activities using machine learning algorithms and wearable sensor data.
    Author: Coelho Ribeiro LA, Bresolin T, Rosa GJM, Rume Casagrande D, Danes MAC, Dórea JRR.
    Journal: J Anim Sci; 2021 Sep 01; 99(9):. PubMed ID: 34223900.
    Abstract:
    Wearable sensors have been explored as an alternative for real-time monitoring of cattle feeding behavior in grazing systems. To evaluate the performance of predictive models such as machine learning (ML) techniques, data cross-validation (CV) approaches are often employed. However, due to data dependencies and confounding effects, poorly performed validation strategies may significantly inflate the prediction quality. In this context, our objective was to evaluate the effect of different CV strategies on the prediction of grazing activities in cattle using wearable sensor (accelerometer) data and ML algorithms. Six Nellore bulls (average live weight of 345 ± 21 kg) had their behavior visually classified as grazing or not-grazing for a period of 15 d. Elastic Net Generalized Linear Model (GLM), Random Forest (RF), and Artificial Neural Network (ANN) were employed to predict grazing activity (grazing or not-grazing) using 3-axis accelerometer data. For each analytical method, three CV strategies were evaluated: holdout, leave-one-animal-out (LOAO), and leave-one-day-out (LODO). Algorithms were trained using similar dataset sizes (holdout: n = 57,862; LOAO: n = 56,786; LODO: n = 56,672). Overall, GLM delivered the worst prediction accuracy (53%) compared with the ML techniques (65% for both RF and ANN), and ANN performed slightly better than RF for LOAO (73%) and LODO (64%) across CV strategies. The holdout yielded the highest nominal accuracy values for all three ML approaches (GLM: 59%, RF: 76%, and ANN: 74%), followed by LODO (GLM: 49%, RF: 61%, and ANN: 63%) and LOAO (GLM: 52%, RF: 57%, and ANN: 57%). With a larger dataset (i.e., more animals and grazing management scenarios), it is expected that accuracy could be increased. Most importantly, the greater prediction accuracy observed for holdout CV may simply indicate a lack of data independence and the presence of carry-over effects from animals and grazing management. Our results suggest that generalizing predictive models to unknown (not used for training) animals or grazing management may incur poor prediction quality. The results highlight the need for using management knowledge to define the validation strategy that is closer to the real-life situation, i.e., the intended application of the predictive model.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]