ArticlePloS one2021
Predictions from algorithmic modeling result in better decisions than from data modeling for soybean iron deficiency chlorosis.
Article in PloS one, 2021. 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.
- From text to traits: exploring the role of large language models in plant breeding.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Review
- Optimizing Genomic Parental Selection for Categorical and Continuous-Categorical Multi-Trait Mixtures.Genes · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In soybean variety development and genetic improvement projects, iron deficiency chlorosis (IDC) is visually assessed as an ordinal response variable. Linear Mixed Models for Genomic Prediction (GP) have been developed, compared, and used to select continuous plant traits such as yield, height, and maturity, but can be inappropriate for ordinal traits. Generalized Linear Mixed Models have been developed for GP of ordinal response variables. However, neither approach addresses the most important questions for cultivar development and genetic improvement: How frequently are the 'wrong' genotypes retained, and how often are the 'correct' genotypes discarded? The research objective reported herein was to compare outcomes from four data modeling and six algorithmic modeling GP methods applied to IDC using decision metrics appropriate for variety development and genetic improvement projects. Appropriate metrics for decision making consist of specificity, sensitivity, precision, decision accuracy, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve. Data modeling methods for GP included ridge regression, logistic regression, penalized logistic regression, and Bayesian generalized linear regression. Algorithmic modeling methods include Random Forest, Gradient Boosting Machine, Support Vector Machine, K-Nearest Neighbors, Naïve Bayes, and Artificial Neural Network. We found that a Support Vector Machine model provided the most specific decisions of correctly discarding IDC susceptible genotypes, while a Random Forest model resulted in the best decisions of retaining IDC tolerant genotypes, as well as the best outcomes when considering all decision metrics. Overall, the predictions from algorithmic modeling result in better decisions than from data modeling methods applied to soybean IDC.
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.