Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36553547›Full record

ArticleGenes2022

A Comparison between Three Tuning Strategies for Gaussian Kernels in the Context of Univariate Genomic Prediction.

Osval A Montesinos-López, Arron H Carter, David Alejandro Bernal-Sandoval, Bernabe Cano-Paez, Abelardo Montesinos-López, José Crossa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Genes, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Osval A Montesinos-LópezFacultad de Telemática, Universidad de Colima, Colima 28040, Mexico.
Arron H CarterDepartment of Crop and Soil Sciences, Washington State University, Pullman, WA 99164, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8019-6554
David Alejandro Bernal-SandovalFacultad de Telemática, Universidad de Colima, Colima 28040, Mexico.
Bernabe Cano-PaezFacultad de Ciencias, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM), Mexico City 04510, Mexico.
Abelardo Montesinos-LópezCentro Universitario de Ciencias Exactas e Ingenierías (CUCEI), Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara 44430, Mexico.
José CrossaInternational Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), El Batan, Texcoco 56237, Mexico.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic prediction is revolutionizing plant breeding since candidate genotypes can be selected without the need to measure their trait in the field. When a reference population contains both phenotypic and genotypic information, it is trained by a statistical machine learning method that is subsequently used for making predictions of breeding or phenotypic values of candidate genotypes that were only genotyped. Nevertheless, the successful implementation of the genomic selection (GS) methodology depends on many factors. One key factor is the type of statistical machine learning method used since some are unable to capture nonlinear patterns available in the data. While kernel methods are powerful statistical machine learning algorithms that capture complex nonlinear patterns in the data, their successful implementation strongly depends on the careful tuning process of the involved hyperparameters. As such, in this paper we compare three methods of tuning (manual tuning, grid search, and Bayesian optimization) for the Gaussian kernel under a Bayesian best linear unbiased predictor model. We used six real datasets of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) to compare the three strategies of tuning. We found that if we want to obtain the major benefits of using Gaussian kernels, it is very important to perform a careful tuning process. The best prediction performance was observed when the tuning process was performed with grid search and Bayesian optimization. However, we did not observe relevant differences between the grid search and Bayesian optimization approach. The observed gains in terms of prediction performance were between 2.1% and 27.8% across the six datasets under study.

Indexed as

GenomicsPlant BreedingAlgorithmsBayes TheoremPhenotypeBayesian optimizationGaussian kernelgenomic predictiongrid searchkernelstuning

Identifiers

PMID36553547
PMCPMC9778581

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.