Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31533955›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2019

Benchmarking Parametric and Machine Learning Models for Genomic Prediction of Complex Traits.

Christina B Azodi, Emily Bolger, Andrew McCarren, Mark Roantree, Gustavo de Los Campos, Shin-Han Shiu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 150 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
150citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

150 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Harnessing artificial intelligence in plant breeding: innovations in digital phenotyping and breeding methodologies.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

90 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

6 authors.

Christina B AzodiDepartment of Plant Biology.ORCID 0000-0002-6097-606X
Emily BolgerDepartment of Mathematics, Moravian College, Bethlehem, PA.
Andrew McCarrenInsight Centre for Data Analytics, School of Computing, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0002-7297-0984
Mark RoantreeInsight Centre for Data Analytics, School of Computing, Dublin City University, Dublin 9, Ireland.
Gustavo de Los CamposDepartment of Epidemiology & Biostatistics gustavoc@msu.edu shius@msu.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-5692-7129
Shin-Han ShiuDepartment of Plant Biology gustavoc@msu.edu shius@msu.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6470-235X

Funding

Factors Affecting Prediction Accuracy of Complex Human Traits and DiseasesR01GM099992 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA AT BIRMINGHAM · PI DE LOS CAMPOS, GUSTAVO · 2012 to 2015
$1.0M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM099992
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The usefulness of genomic prediction in crop and livestock breeding programs has prompted efforts to develop new and improved genomic prediction algorithms, such as artificial neural networks and gradient tree boosting. However, the performance of these algorithms has not been compared in a systematic manner using a wide range of datasets and models. Using data of 18 traits across six plant species with different marker densities and training population sizes, we compared the performance of six linear and six non-linear algorithms. First, we found that hyperparameter selection was necessary for all non-linear algorithms and that feature selection prior to model training was critical for artificial neural networks when the markers greatly outnumbered the number of training lines. Across all species and trait combinations, no one algorithm performed best, however predictions based on a combination of results from multiple algorithms (

Indexed as

Machine LearningBenchmarkingGenomicsGenotypeNeural Networks, ComputerPhenotypePlantsartificial neural networkGenomic PredictionGenomic selectiongenotype-to-phenotypeGenPredShared Data Resources

Identifiers

PMID31533955
PMCPMC6829122

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.