Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33692825›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in genetics2021

Feature Selection Stability and Accuracy of Prediction Models for Genomic Prediction of Residual Feed Intake in Pigs Using Machine Learning.

Miriam Piles, Rob Bergsma, Daniel Gianola, Hélène Gilbert, Llibertat Tusell

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Enhancing genomic prediction inFrontiers in bioinformatics · 2025
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Miriam PilesAnimal Breeding and Genetics Program, Institute of Agriculture and Food Research and Technology (IRTA), Barcelona, Spain.
Rob BergsmaTopigs Norsvin Research Center, Beuningen, Netherlands.
Daniel GianolaDepartment of Animal Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, United States.
Hélène GilbertGenPhySE, INRAE, Université de Toulouse, Castanet-Tolosan, France.
Llibertat TusellAnimal Breeding and Genetics Program, Institute of Agriculture and Food Research and Technology (IRTA), Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Feature selection (FS, i.e., selection of a subset of predictor variables) is essential in high-dimensional datasets to prevent overfitting of prediction/classification models and reduce computation time and resources. In genomics, FS allows identifying relevant markers and designing low-density SNP chips to evaluate selection candidates. In this research, several univariate and multivariate FS algorithms combined with various parametric and non-parametric learners were applied to the prediction of feed efficiency in growing pigs from high-dimensional genomic data. The objective was to find the best combination of feature selector, SNP subset size, and learner leading to accurate and stable (i.e., less sensitive to changes in the training data) prediction models. Genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) without SNP pre-selection was the benchmark. Three types of FS methods were implemented: (i) filter methods: univariate (univ.dtree, spearcor) or multivariate (cforest, mrmr), with random selection as benchmark; (ii) embedded methods: elastic net and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression; (iii) combination of filter and embedded methods. Ridge regression, support vector machine (SVM), and gradient boosting (GB) were applied after pre-selection performed with the filter methods. Data represented 5,708 individual records of residual feed intake to be predicted from the animal's own genotype. Accuracy (stability of results) was measured as the median (interquartile range) of the Spearman correlation between observed and predicted data in a 10-fold cross-validation. The best prediction in terms of accuracy and stability was obtained with SVM and GB using 500 or more SNPs [0.28 (0.02) and 0.27 (0.04) for SVM and GB with 1,000 SNPs, respectively]. With larger subset sizes (1,000-1,500 SNPs), the filter method had no influence on prediction quality, which was similar to that attained with a random selection. With 50-250 SNPs, the FS method had a huge impact on prediction quality: it was very poor for tree-based methods combined with any learner, but good and similar to what was obtained with larger SNP subsets when spearcor or mrmr were implemented with or without embedded methods. Those filters also led to very stable results, suggesting their potential use for designing low-density SNP chips for genome-based evaluation of feed efficiency.

Indexed as

feature selectionfeed efficiency and growthgenomic predictionmachine learningpigsSNPstability

Identifiers

PMID33692825
PMCPMC7938892

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.