ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2022
Using machine learning to improve the accuracy of genomic prediction of reproduction traits in pigs.
Article in Journal of animal science and biotechnology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 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
43 citing papers in PubMed.
- PGS-GS: a framework integrating polygenic scores and genomic selection in animal breeding.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- From linear models to deep learning: statistical advances in genomic selection for animal breeding.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Integrated Analysis of SNPs and Structural Variations via High-depth Whole-genome Sequencing Reveals the Genetic Architecture and Optimizes Genomic Prediction in Chickens.Poultry science · 2026Article
- Impact of QTL number, heritability and reference population size on the benefit of machine learning models over GBLUP in genomic prediction.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2026Article
- Enhancing genomic prediction for key production traits in chickens through ultrasound phenotyping and multi-model comparative analysis.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2026Article
- Candidate Gene Identification and Genomic Prediction for Key Reproductive Traits in Yorkshire, Landrace, and Duroc Pigs.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
- Integrative transcriptomics and machine learning reveal key regulatory genes for meat quality traits in pigs.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Sharing approaches in predictive genomics across animals, plants and humans.Nature genetics · 2026Review
- Haplotype applications in genomic selection.Genome biology · 2026Review
- From machine learning to digital twin integration for livestock production and research.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2026Review
- Advancements in Animal Breeding: From Mendelian Genetics to Machine Learning.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- A Deep Autoencoder Compression-Based Genomic Prediction Method for Whole-Genome Sequencing Data.Biology · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of SNP-weighted, Bayesian, and machine learning models for genomic prediction in Holstein cattle.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- EasyGeSe - a resource for benchmarking genomic prediction methods.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Genomic Selection for Cashmere Traits in Inner Mongolian Cashmere Goats Using Random Forest, Gradient Boosting Decision Tree, Extreme Gradient Boosting and Light Gradient Boosting Machine Methods.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Article
- Integrating gene expression data via weighted multiple kernel ridge regression improved accuracy of genomic prediction.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2025Article
- Genetic Strategies for Improving Pig Robustness: Reducing Antibiotic Use Through Enhanced Resilience and Disease Resistance.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2025Review
- Incorporating information of causal variants in genomic prediction using GBLUP or machine learning models in a simulated livestock population.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2025Article
- A deep learning strategy for accurate identification of purebred and hybrid pigs across SNP chips.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Weaning performance prediction in lactating sows using machine learning, for precision nutrition and intelligent feeding.Animal nutrition (Zhongguo xu mu shou yi xue hui) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRecently, machine learning (ML) has become attractive in genomic prediction, but its superiority in genomic prediction over conventional (ss) GBLUP methods and the choice of optimal ML methods need to be investigated.
resultsIn this study, 2566 Chinese Yorkshire pigs with reproduction trait records were genotyped with the GenoBaits Porcine SNP 50 K and PorcineSNP50 panels. Four ML methods, including support vector regression (SVR), kernel ridge regression (KRR), random forest (RF) and Adaboost.R2 were implemented. Through 20 replicates of fivefold cross-validation (CV) and one prediction for younger individuals, the utility of ML methods in genomic prediction was explored. In CV, compared with genomic BLUP (GBLUP), single-step GBLUP (ssGBLUP) and the Bayesian method BayesHE, ML methods significantly outperformed these conventional methods. ML methods improved the genomic prediction accuracy of GBLUP, ssGBLUP, and BayesHE by 19.3%, 15.0% and 20.8%, respectively. In addition, ML methods yielded smaller mean squared error (MSE) and mean absolute error (MAE) in all scenarios. ssGBLUP yielded an improvement of 3.8% on average in accuracy compared to that of GBLUP, and the accuracy of BayesHE was close to that of GBLUP. In genomic prediction of younger individuals, RF and Adaboost.R2_KRR performed better than GBLUP and BayesHE, while ssGBLUP performed comparably with RF, and ssGBLUP yielded slightly higher accuracy and lower MSE than Adaboost.R2_KRR in the prediction of total number of piglets born, while for number of piglets born alive, Adaboost.R2_KRR performed significantly better than ssGBLUP. Among ML methods, Adaboost.R2_KRR consistently performed well in our study. Our findings also demonstrated that optimal hyperparameters are useful for ML methods. After tuning hyperparameters in CV and in predicting genomic outcomes of younger individuals, the average improvement was 14.3% and 21.8% over those using default hyperparameters, respectively.
conclusionOur findings demonstrated that ML methods had better overall prediction performance than conventional genomic selection methods, and could be new options for genomic prediction. Among ML methods, Adaboost.R2_KRR consistently performed well in our study, and tuning hyperparameters is necessary for ML methods. The optimal hyperparameters depend on the character of traits, datasets etc.
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.