Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35578371›Full record

ArticleJournal of animal science and biotechnology2022

Using machine learning to improve the accuracy of genomic prediction of reproduction traits in pigs.

Xue Wang, Shaolei Shi, Guijiang Wang, Wenxue Luo, Xia Wei, Ao Qiu, Fei Luo, Xiangdong Ding

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

43 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Xue WangKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, National Engineering Laboratory of Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Shaolei ShiKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, National Engineering Laboratory of Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Guijiang WangHebei Province Animal Husbandry and Improved Breeds Work Station, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Wenxue LuoHebei Province Animal Husbandry and Improved Breeds Work Station, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Xia WeiZhangjiakou Dahao Heshan New Agricultural Development Co., Ltd, Zhangjiakou, Hebei, China.
Ao QiuKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, National Engineering Laboratory of Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China.
Fei LuoHebei Province Animal Husbandry and Improved Breeds Work Station, Shijiazhuang, Hebei, China.
Xiangdong DingKey Laboratory of Animal Genetics and Breeding of Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, National Engineering Laboratory of Animal Breeding, College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, China. xding@cau.edu.cn.

Funding

Modern Agriculture Science and Technology Key Project of Hebei Province 19226376DNational Key Research and Development Project 2019YFE0106800
6 · The paper itself

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

Genomic predictionMachine learningPigPrediction accuracy

Identifiers

PMID35578371
PMCPMC9112588

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.