ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2020
Deep learning versus parametric and ensemble methods for genomic prediction of complex phenotypes.
Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 123 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
123 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 223 citations in OpenAlex.
- Genome-Enabled Prediction Methods Based on Machine Learning.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022Pooled it
- Mul-PheG2P: decoupled learning and prediction-space fusion enables robust and interpretable multi-phenotype genomic prediction.The New phytologist · 2026Article
- Integrating multi-layer perceptron and random forest in an ensemble framework for improved genomic prediction accuracy and SHAP-derived interpretability of residual feed intake in cattle.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2026Article
- From linear models to deep learning: statistical advances in genomic selection for animal breeding.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Integrated Analysis of SNPs and Structural Variations via High-depth Whole-genome Sequencing Reveals the Genetic Architecture and Optimizes Genomic Prediction in Chickens.Poultry science · 2026Article
- Impact of QTL number, heritability and reference population size on the benefit of machine learning models over GBLUP in genomic prediction.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2026Article
- OptimGS: a dual integrative genomic prediction framework for improving cold stress tolerance in wheat.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Gsformer: a dual-architecture deep learning framework with CNN-self-attention and sparse-attention for genomic selection.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2026Article
- Predicting complex phenotypes using multi-omics data in maize.The Plant cell · 2026Article
- ConvCGP: A convolutional neural network to predict genetic values of agronomic traits from compressed genome-wide polymorphisms.The plant genome · 2026Article
- 2NPLGBM: a genomic model that merges the strengths of classical and machine learning methods in genomic prediction.Plant methods · 2026Article
- CWAGS: multi-trait genomic selection using channel weighted attention convolutional network.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Machine learning for evolutionary genetics and molecular evolution.Trends in genetics : TIG · 2026Review
- Recent progress in genomic prediction for Hanwoo cattle and its implications for beef quality: review.Animal bioscience · 2026Article
- Omics Technologies in Molecular Biology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Article
- Feed-forward neural networks for genomic selection: insights into varying levels of dominance heritability.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in animal breeding and genetics: applications, opportunities, and challenges.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2026Article
- Leveraging weighted embedding and Transformer architecture to improve phenotype prediction of complex traits for crops.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Article
- MeNet: A mixed-effect deep neural network for multi-environment genomic prediction of agronomic traits.Plant communications · 2026Article
63 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTransforming large amounts of genomic data into valuable knowledge for predicting complex traits has been an important challenge for animal and plant breeders. Prediction of complex traits has not escaped the current excitement on machine-learning, including interest in deep learning algorithms such as multilayer perceptrons (MLP) and convolutional neural networks (CNN). The aim of this study was to compare the predictive performance of two deep learning methods (MLP and CNN), two ensemble learning methods [random forests (RF) and gradient boosting (GB)], and two parametric methods [genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) and Bayes B] using real and simulated datasets.
methodsThe real dataset consisted of 11,790 Holstein bulls with sire conception rate (SCR) records and genotyped for 58k single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). To support the evaluation of deep learning methods, various simulation studies were conducted using the observed genotype data as template, assuming a heritability of 0.30 with either additive or non-additive gene effects, and two different numbers of quantitative trait nucleotides (100 and 1000).
resultsIn the bull dataset, the best predictive correlation was obtained with GB (0.36), followed by Bayes B (0.34), GBLUP (0.33), RF (0.32), CNN (0.29) and MLP (0.26). The same trend was observed when using mean squared error of prediction. The simulation indicated that when gene action was purely additive, parametric methods outperformed other methods. When the gene action was a combination of additive, dominance and of two-locus epistasis, the best predictive ability was obtained with gradient boosting, and the superiority of deep learning over the parametric methods depended on the number of loci controlling the trait and on sample size. In fact, with a large dataset including 80k individuals, the predictive performance of deep learning methods was similar or slightly better than that of parametric methods for traits with non-additive gene action.
conclusionsFor prediction of traits with non-additive gene action, gradient boosting was a robust method. Deep learning approaches were not better for genomic prediction unless non-additive variance was sizable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.