Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38326768›Full record

ArticleBMC genomics2024

Genomic prediction using machine learning: a comparison of the performance of regularized regression, ensemble, instance-based and deep learning methods on synthetic and empirical data.

Vanda M Lourenço, Joseph O Ogutu, Rui A P Rodrigues, Alexandra Posekany, Hans-Peter Piepho

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC genomics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
28.6field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Bridging tradition and innovation: a review of computer simulations in plant breeding.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Vanda M LourençoCenter for Mathematics and Applications (NOVA Math) and Department of Mathematics, NOVA SST, 2829-516, Caparica, Portugal. vmml@fct.unl.pt.
Joseph O OgutuInstitute of Crop Science, Biostatistics Unit, University of Hohenheim, Fruwirthstrasse 23, 70599, Stuttgart, Germany. jogutu2007@gmail.com.
Rui A P RodriguesCenter for Mathematics and Applications (NOVA Math) and Department of Mathematics, NOVA SST, 2829-516, Caparica, Portugal.
Alexandra PosekanyResearch Unit of Computational Statistics, Vienna University of Technology, Wiedner Hauptstr. 8-10, 1040, Vienna, Austria.
Hans-Peter PiephoInstitute of Crop Science, Biostatistics Unit, University of Hohenheim, Fruwirthstrasse 23, 70599, Stuttgart, Germany.
University of Hohenheim · DETU Wien · AT

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft 257734638Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia UIDB/00297/2020 and UIDP/00297/2020German Federal Ministry of Education and Research 0315526
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe accurate prediction of genomic breeding values is central to genomic selection in both plant and animal breeding studies. Genomic prediction involves the use of thousands of molecular markers spanning the entire genome and therefore requires methods able to efficiently handle high dimensional data. Not surprisingly, machine learning methods are becoming widely advocated for and used in genomic prediction studies. These methods encompass different groups of supervised and unsupervised learning methods. Although several studies have compared the predictive performances of individual methods, studies comparing the predictive performance of different groups of methods are rare. However, such studies are crucial for identifying (i) groups of methods with superior genomic predictive performance and assessing (ii) the merits and demerits of such groups of methods relative to each other and to the established classical methods. Here, we comparatively evaluate the genomic predictive performance and informally assess the computational cost of several groups of supervised machine learning methods, specifically, regularized regression methods, deep, ensemble and instance-based learning algorithms, using one simulated animal breeding dataset and three empirical maize breeding datasets obtained from a commercial breeding program.

resultsOur results show that the relative predictive performance and computational expense of the groups of machine learning methods depend upon both the data and target traits and that for classical regularized methods, increasing model complexity can incur huge computational costs but does not necessarily always improve predictive accuracy. Thus, despite their greater complexity and computational burden, neither the adaptive nor the group regularized methods clearly improved upon the results of their simple regularized counterparts. This rules out selection of one procedure among machine learning methods for routine use in genomic prediction. The results also show that, because of their competitive predictive performance, computational efficiency, simplicity and therefore relatively few tuning parameters, the classical linear mixed model and regularized regression methods are likely to remain strong contenders for genomic prediction.

conclusionsThe dependence of predictive performance and computational burden on target datasets and traits call for increasing investments in enhancing the computational efficiency of machine learning algorithms and computing resources.

Indexed as

Deep LearningAnimalsGenomeGenomicsMachine LearningPlant BreedingBreeding valueGenomic predictionGenomic selectionHigh-dimensional dataPredictive abilityPredictive accuracySupervised machine learning methods

Identifiers

PMID38326768
PMCPMC10848392
OpenAlexW4391614881

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.