ArticleFrontiers in plant science2023
A novel method for genomic-enabled prediction of cultivars in new environments.
Article in Frontiers in plant science, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- An explainable AI-based hybrid machine learning model for interpretability and enhanced crop yield prediction.MethodsX · 2025Article
- Exploiting historical agronomic data to develop genomic prediction strategies for early clonal selection in the Louisiana sugarcane variety development program.The plant genome · 2025Article
- Alterations of oral microbiome and metabolic signatures and their interaction in oral lichen planus.Journal of oral microbiology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Genomic selection (GS) has gained global importance due to its potential to accelerate genetic progress and improve the efficiency of breeding programs. Objectives of the research: In this research we proposed a method to improve the prediction accuracy of tested lines in new (untested) environments. Method-1: The new method trained the model with a modified response variable (a difference of response variables) that decreases the lack of a non-stationary distribution between the training and testing and improved the prediction accuracy. Comparing new and conventional method: We compared the prediction accuracy of the conventional genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP) model (M1) including (or not) genotype × environment interaction (GE) (M1_GE; M1_NO_GE) versus the proposed method (M2) on several data sets. Results and discussion: The gain in prediction accuracy of M2, versus M1_GE, M1_NO_GE in terms of Pearson´s correlation was of at least 4.3%, while in terms of percentage of top-yielding lines captured when was selected the 10% (Best10) and 20% (Best20) of lines was at least of 19.5%, while in terms of Normalized Root Mean Squared Error (NRMSE) was of at least of 42.29%.
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.