ArticleJournal of genetics2021
Comparison of regression tree-based methods in genomic selection.
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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Rapid selection of early-maturing and low-ear position maize hybrids suitable for China using genomic prediction.Plant molecular biology · 2026Article
- Consequences of ignoring dominance genetic effects from genomic selection model for discrete threshold traits.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Accelerating imputation of missing genotypes using parallel computing.Journal of genetics · 2022Article
- Comparative Genomics of Thaumarchaeota From Deep-Sea Sponges Reveal Their Niche Adaptation.Frontiers in microbiology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
34825658W3212950354What 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.