Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34323393›Full record

ArticleThe plant genome2021

Application of a Poisson deep neural network model for the prediction of count data in genome-based prediction.

Osval A Montesinos-Lopez, Jose C Montesinos-Lopez, Eduardo Salazar, Jose Alberto Barron, Abelardo Montesinos-Lopez, Raymundo Buenrostro-Mariscal, Jose Crossa

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The plant genome, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Resistance gene againstFrontiers in plant science · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Assessment of genomic prediction capabilities of transcriptome data in a barley multi-parent RIL population.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Artificial Intelligence-Assisted Breeding for Plant Disease Resistance.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Osval A Montesinos-LopezFacultad de Telemática, Univ. de Colima, Colima, Colima, 28040, México.
Jose C Montesinos-LopezDep. de Estadística, Centro de Investigación en Matemáticas, Guanajuato, Guanajuato, 36023, México.
Eduardo SalazarFacultad de Telemática, Univ. de Colima, Colima, Colima, 28040, México.
Jose Alberto BarronDep. of Animal Production (DPA), Universidad Nacional Agraria La Molina, Av. La Molina, s/n La Molina 15024, Lima, Perú.
Abelardo Montesinos-LopezDep. de Matemáticas, Centro Universitario de Ciencias Exactas e Ingenierías, Univ. de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Jalisco, 44430, México.
Raymundo Buenrostro-MariscalFacultad de Telemática, Univ. de Colima, Colima, Colima, 28040, México.
Jose CrossaBiometrics and Statistics Unit, International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Carretera km 45, Mexico-Veracruz, Texcoco, Edo. de México, CP 52640, México.ORCID 0000-0001-9429-5855
Universidad de Colima · MXCentro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maíz Y Trigo · MXUniversidad de Guadalajara · MXUniversidad Nacional Agraria La Molina · PE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic selection (GS) is revolutionizing conventional ways of developing new plants and animals. However, because it is a predictive methodology, GS strongly depends on statistical and machine learning to perform these predictions. For continuous outcomes, more models are available for GS. Unfortunately, for count data outcomes, there are few efficient statistical machine learning models for large datasets or for datasets with fewer observations than independent variables. For this reason, in this paper, we applied the univariate version of the Poisson deep neural network (PDNN) proposed earlier for genomic predictions of count data. The model was implemented with (a) the negative log-likelihood of Poisson distribution as the loss function, (b) the rectified linear activation unit as the activation function in hidden layers, and (c) the exponential activation function in the output layer. The advantage of the PDNN model is that it captures complex patterns in the data by implementing many nonlinear transformations in the hidden layers. Moreover, since it was implemented in Tensorflow as the back-end, and in Keras as the front-end, the model can be applied to moderate and large datasets, which is a significant advantage over previous GS models for count data. The PDNN model was compared with deep learning models with continuous outcomes, conventional generalized Poisson regression models, and conventional Bayesian regression methods. We found that the PDNN model outperformed the Bayesian regression and generalized Poisson regression methods in terms of prediction accuracy, although it was not better than the conventional deep neural network with continuous outcomes.

Indexed as

GenomeNeural Networks, ComputerBayes TheoremGenomicsMachine Learning

Identifiers

PMID34323393
PMCPMC12807049
OpenAlexW3184119917

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.