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.
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.
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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 52 citations in OpenAlex.
- Generative artificial intelligence in animal genomics for smart agriculture: Applications, challenges, and future prospects.Veterinary and animal science · 2026Review
- Article
- Bridging tradition and innovation: a review of computer simulations in plant breeding.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026Review
- Ensemble-based genomic prediction for maize flowering time improves prediction accuracy and reveals novel insights into trait genetic variation.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- ConvCGP: A convolutional neural network to predict genetic values of agronomic traits from compressed genome-wide polymorphisms.The plant genome · 2026Article
- A benchmarking of genomic selection models for predicting grain-yield related traits using haplotype-based and genome-wide association study-based markers in rice.The plant genome · 2026Article
- Leveraging AI and integrated genomic-enviromic prediction for intelligent sugarcane breeding.Plant communications · 2026Review
- Genomic prediction accuracy for low hydrogen cyanide selection in fresh cassava roots. Comparative model analysis.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- Next-Generation Genotyping: Innovations Driving Plant Genomic Improvement.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Integrating genomic prediction into crop DUS testing: new approaches in support of reference collection management and distinctness assessment.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2026Article
- Genomic selection for multi-trait crop improvement in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.): a practical modeling approach.BMC plant biology · 2026Article
- ASAS-NANP Symposium: Mathematical modeling in animal nutrition: revolutionizing animal farming with artificial intelligence: trends, challenges, and opportunities.Journal of animal science · 2026Review
- Genomic prediction of feed efficiency in boars by deep learning.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2026Article
- Integrative genomics for mango genetics and breeding.Horticulture research · 2026Article
- GViT-GP: injecting the genomic relationship matrix as an inductive bias into a vision transformer via cross-attention for genomic prediction.Frontiers in genetics · 2026Article
- Genomic selection and reproducibility: are complex models distracting us from true scientific validity in the presence of genotype-by-environment interaction?G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Article
- Haplotype-based autoencoders can reduce the dataset dimension and estimate haplotype block effects in different crop species.BMC bioinformatics · 2025Article
- Genetic parameters estimation and optimization of genomic selection in mud crab (Scylla paramamosain): a case study for growth-related traits.BMC genomics · 2025Article
- Enhancing genomic predictive ability of yield and yield-related traits in spring wheat by integrating major plant adaptation genes as a fixed effect.TAG. Theoretical and applied genetics. Theoretische und angewandte Genetik · 2025Article
- Disentangling soybean GxE effects in an integrated genomic prediction and machine learning-GWAS workflow.Plant methods · 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
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
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
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.