Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37101112›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2023

Two simple methods to improve the accuracy of the genomic selection methodology.

Osval A Montesinos-López, Kismiantini, Abelardo Montesinos-López

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Osval A Montesinos-LópezFacultad de Telemática, Universidad de Colima, 28040, Colima, México. oamontes2@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3973-6547
KismiantiniStatistics Study Program, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, 55281, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.
Abelardo Montesinos-LópezCentro Universitario de Ciencias Exactas e Ingenierías (CUCEI), Universidad de Guadalajara, Jalisco, 44430, Guadalajara, México. aml_uach2004@hotmail.com.
Universidad de Colima · MXUniversidad de Guadalajara · MXYogyakarta State University · ID

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGenomic selection (GS) is revolutionizing plant and animal breeding. However, still its practical implementation is challenging since it is affected by many factors that when they are not under control make this methodology not effective. Also, due to the fact that it is formulated as a regression problem in general has low sensitivity to select the best candidate individuals since a top percentage is selected according to a ranking of predicted breeding values.

resultsFor this reason, in this paper we propose two methods to improve the prediction accuracy of this methodology. One of the methods consist in reformulating the GS (nowadays formulated as a regression problem) methodology as a binary classification problem. The other consists only in a postprocessing step that adjust the threshold used for classification of the lines predicted in its original scale (continues scale) to guarantee similar sensitivity and specificity. The postprocessing method is applied for the resulting predictions after obtaining the predictions using the conventional regression model. Both methods assume that we defined with anticipation a threshold, to divide the training data as top lines and not top lines, and this threshold can be decided in terms of a quantile (for example 80%, 90%, etc.) or as the average (or maximum) of the performance of the checks. In the reformulation method it is required to label as one those lines in the training set that are equal or larger than the specified threshold and as zero otherwise. Then we train a binary classification model with the conventional inputs, but using the binary response variable in place of the continuous response variable. The training of the binary classification should be done to guarantee a more similar sensitivity and specificity, to guarantee a reasonable probability of classification of the top lines.

conclusionsWe evaluated the proposed models in seven data sets and we found that the two proposed methods outperformed by large margin the conventional regression model (by 402.9% in terms of sensitivity, by 110.04% in terms of F1 score and by 70.96% in terms of Kappa coefficient, with the postprocessing methods). However, between the two proposed methods the postprocessing method was better than the reformulation as binary classification model. The simple postprocessing method to improve the accuracy of the conventional genomic regression models avoid the need to reformulate the conventional regression models as binary classification models with similar or better performance, that significantly improve the selection of the top best candidate lines. In general both proposed methods are simple and can easily be adopted for use in practical breeding programs, with the guarantee that will improve significantly the selection of the top best candidates lines.

Indexed as

Plant BreedingSelection, GeneticAnimalsGenomeGenomicsModels, GeneticPhenotypeBinary classificationGenomic predictionGenomic selectionPostprocessing methodReformulation

Identifiers

PMID37101112
PMCPMC10131336
OpenAlexW4367052487

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.