ArticleGenes2022
A Comparison between Three Tuning Strategies for Gaussian Kernels in the Context of Univariate Genomic Prediction.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Genomic prediction accuracy for low hydrogen cyanide selection in fresh cassava roots. Comparative model analysis.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- GWKBR: a novel method integrating machine learning and Bayesian inference framework to improve genomic prediction accuracy.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Integrating gene expression data via weighted multiple kernel ridge regression improved accuracy of genomic prediction.Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE · 2025Article
- Genetic Algorithm-based Convolutional Neural Network Feature Engineering for Optimizing Coronary Heart Disease Prediction Performance.Healthcare informatics research · 2024Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.