ArticleGenetica2018
Genomic prediction using an iterative conditional expectation algorithm for a fast BayesC-like model.
Article in Genetica, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research progress on genomic selection breeding technology for crops.Protoplasma · 2026Review
- A Framework Integrating GWAS and Genomic Selection to Enhance Prediction Accuracy of Economical Traits in Common Carp.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genomic prediction is feasible for estimating genomic breeding values because of dense genome-wide markers and credible statistical methods, such as Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (GBLUP) and various Bayesian methods. Compared with GBLUP, Bayesian methods propose more flexible assumptions for the distributions of SNP effects. However, most Bayesian methods are performed based on Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) algorithms, leading to computational efficiency challenges. Hence, some fast Bayesian approaches, such as fast BayesB (fBayesB), were proposed to speed up the calculation. This study proposed another fast Bayesian method termed fast BayesC (fBayesC). The prior distribution of fBayesC assumes that a SNP with probability γ has a non-zero effect which comes from a normal density with a common variance. The simulated data from QTLMAS XII workshop and actual data on large yellow croaker were used to compare the predictive results of fBayesB, fBayesC and (MCMC-based) BayesC. The results showed that when γ was set as a small value, such as 0.01 in the simulated data or 0.001 in the actual data, fBayesB and fBayesC yielded lower prediction accuracies (abilities) than BayesC. In the actual data, fBayesC could yield very similar predictive abilities as BayesC when γ ≥ 0.01. When γ = 0.01, fBayesB could also yield similar results as fBayesC and BayesC. However, fBayesB could not yield an explicit result when γ ≥ 0.1, but a similar situation was not observed for fBayesC. Moreover, the computational speed of fBayesC was significantly faster than that of BayesC, making fBayesC a promising method for genomic prediction.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29948517What 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.