Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32093611›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2020

Deep learning versus parametric and ensemble methods for genomic prediction of complex phenotypes.

Rostam Abdollahi-Arpanahi, Daniel Gianola, Francisco Peñagaricano

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
123citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
21.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

123 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 223 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Genome-Enabled Prediction Methods Based on Machine Learning.Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Omics Technologies in Molecular Biology.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Artificial intelligence in animal breeding and genetics: applications, opportunities, and challenges.Animal frontiers : the review magazine of animal agriculture · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

63 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rostam Abdollahi-ArpanahiDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Daniel GianolaDepartments of Animal Sciences and Dairy Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Francisco PeñagaricanoDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. fpenagaricano@ufl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6661-3991
University of Florida · USUniversity of Wisconsin–Madison · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Deep LearningGenomicsAnimalsBayes TheoremCattleGenotypeModels, GeneticMultifactorial InheritancePhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideQuantitative Trait, Heritable

Identifiers

PMID32093611
PMCPMC7038529
OpenAlexW3012909962

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.