Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29097376›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2018

Prediction of Multiple-Trait and Multiple-Environment Genomic Data Using Recommender Systems.

Osval A Montesinos-López, Abelardo Montesinos-López, José Crossa, José C Montesinos-López, David Mota-Sanchez, Fermín Estrada-González, Jussi Gillberg, Ravi Singh, Suchismita Mondal, Philomin Juliana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Integrating genomic-enabled prediction and high-throughput phenotyping in breeding for climate-resilient bread wheat.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2019
    Article
  7. Crop Yield Prediction Using Deep Neural Networks.Frontiers in plant science · 2019
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Osval A Montesinos-LópezFacultad de Telemática, Universidad de Colima, 28040 Colima, México oamontes1@ucol.mx j.crossa@cgiar.org.
Abelardo Montesinos-LópezDepartamento de Matemáticas, Centro Universitario de Ciencias Exactas e Ingenierías (CUCEI), Universidad de Guadalajara, 44430 Jalisco, México.
José CrossaInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Apdo. Postal 6-641, 06600 México City, México oamontes1@ucol.mx j.crossa@cgiar.org.ORCID 0000-0001-9429-5855
José C Montesinos-LópezDepartamento de Estadística, Centro de Investigación en Matemáticas (CIMAT), 36240 Guanajuato, México.
David Mota-SanchezDepartment of Entomology, Michigan State University, East Lancing, Michigan 48824.
Fermín Estrada-GonzálezFacultad de Telemática, Universidad de Colima, 28040 Colima, México.
Jussi GillbergDepartment of Computer Science, Aalto University, FI-00076, Finland.
Ravi SinghInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Apdo. Postal 6-641, 06600 México City, México.
Suchismita MondalInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Apdo. Postal 6-641, 06600 México City, México.
Philomin JulianaInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Apdo. Postal 6-641, 06600 México City, México.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In genomic-enabled prediction, the task of improving the accuracy of the prediction of lines in environments is difficult because the available information is generally sparse and usually has low correlations between traits. In current genomic selection, although researchers have a large amount of information and appropriate statistical models to process it, there is still limited computing efficiency to do so. Although some statistical models are usually mathematically elegant, many of them are also computationally inefficient, and they are impractical for many traits, lines, environments, and years because they need to sample from huge normal multivariate distributions. For these reasons, this study explores two recommender systems: item-based collaborative filtering (IBCF) and the matrix factorization algorithm (MF) in the context of multiple traits and multiple environments. The IBCF and MF methods were compared with two conventional methods on simulated and real data. Results of the simulated and real data sets show that the IBCF technique was slightly better in terms of prediction accuracy than the two conventional methods and the MF method when the correlation was moderately high. The IBCF technique is very attractive because it produces good predictions when there is high correlation between items (environment-trait combinations) and its implementation is computationally feasible, which can be useful for plant breeders who deal with very large data sets.

Indexed as

Gene-Environment InteractionGenome, PlantModels, StatisticalQuantitative Trait, HeritableAlgorithmsCrops, AgriculturalGenotypeModels, GeneticPhenotypePlant BreedingPloidiesPolymorphism, Single NucleotideSelection, GeneticTriticumZea mayscollaborative filteringenvironment interactiongenomic informationGenomic SelectiongenotypeGenPreditem-based collaborative filteringmatrix factorizationmulti-traitprediction accuracyShared Data Resources

Identifiers

PMID29097376
PMCPMC5765342

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.