ArticleBMC genomics2023
Two simple methods to improve the accuracy of the genomic selection methodology.
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.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tailoring AI and ML models for genotype-by-environment prediction leveraging environmental covariates: A European rye example.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026Article
- Machine learning for genomic prediction of growth traits in aquaculture: a case study of the Australasian snapper (Chrysophrys auratus).BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Candidate Genes, Markers, Signatures of Selection, and Quantitative Trait Loci (QTLs) and Their Association with Economic Traits in Livestock: Genomic Insights and Selection.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
- Genomic selection: Essence, applications, and prospects.The plant genome · 2025Review
- Prediction of biomass sorghum hybrids using environmental feature-enriched genomic combining ability models in tropical environments.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025Article
- Balancing Sensitivity and Specificity Enhances Top and Bottom Ranking in Genomic Prediction of Cultivars.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Prediction of aflatoxin contamination outbreaks in Texas corn using mechanistic and machine learning models.Frontiers in microbiology · 2025Article
- Obscured-ensemble models for genomic prediction.PloS one · 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
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.