Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34825658›Full record

ArticleJournal of genetics2021

Comparison of regression tree-based methods in genomic selection.

Sahar Ashoori-Banaei, Farhad Ghafouri Kesbi, Ahmad Ahmadi

Abstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of genetics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 23% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sahar Ashoori-BanaeiDepartment of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Bu-Ali Sina University, 6517838695 Hamedan, Iran. f.ghafouri@basu.ac.ir.
Farhad Ghafouri Kesbi
Ahmad Ahmadi
Bu-Ali Sina University · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the predictive performance of tree-based methods including regression tree (RT), random forest (RF) and Boosting (BT) in genomic selection. To do this, a genome comprised of five chromosomes was simulated for 1000 individuals on which 5000 single-nucleotide polymorphisms were evenly distributed. Comparison of methods was made in different scenarios of genetic architecture (number of QTL and distribution of QTL effects) and heritability level (0.1, 0.3 and 0.5). Computing time and memory requirement of the studied methods were also measured. In all the scenarios studied, the RT had the lowest accuracy, one-half to one-third of that was observed for RF and Boosting. Therefore, while RT was most efficient user of time and memory, because of its low accuracy, it was not recommended for genomic selection. Comparing RF and Boosting, at low levels of heritability (0.1 and 0.3), the prediction accuracy of RF was significantly higher than Boosting, but at heritability of 0.5, their accuracy was almost equal. In addition, RF was significantly superior to Boosting regarding computing time and memory requirement. While, heritability had a significant impact on the accuracy of prediction, the effect of number of QTL and distribution of QTL effects were not very dramatic. According to the overall performance of the studied methods, RF is recommended for genomic selection.

Indexed as

Regression AnalysisSelection, GeneticComputer SimulationGenomics

Identifiers

PMID34825658
OpenAlexW3212950354

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.