ArticleJournal of applied genetics2024
Using machine learning and partial dependence to evaluate robustness of best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) for phenotypic values.
Article in Journal of applied genetics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Best linear unbiased prediction (BLUP) is widely used in plant research to address experimental variation. For phenotypic values, BLUP accuracy is largely dependent on properly controlled experimental repetition and how variable components are outlined in the model. Thus, determining BLUP robustness implies the need to evaluate contributions from each repetition. Here, we assessed the robustness of BLUP values for simulated or empirical phenotypic datasets, where the BLUP value and each experimental repetition served as dependent and independent (feature) variables, respectively. Our technique incorporated machine learning and partial dependence. First, we compared the feature importance estimated with the neural networks. Second, we compared estimated average marginal effects of individual repetitions, calculated with a partial dependence analysis. We showed that contributions of experimental repetitions are unequal in a phenotypic dataset, suggesting that the calculated BLUP value is likely to be influenced by some repetitions more than others (such as failing to detect simulated true positive associations). To resolve disproportionate sources, variable components in the BLUP model must be further outlined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38170439What 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.