ArticleBiochemical genetics2025
Investigating the Performance of Frequentist and Bayesian Techniques in Genomic Evaluation.
Article in Biochemical genetics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the mechanism of Dieda Qili Tablet on fracture healing based on network pharmacology combined with machine learning models.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Feed-forward neural networks for genomic selection: insights into varying levels of dominance heritability.BMC genomics · 2026Article
- Article
- The effect of different approaches to determining the regularization parameter of bayesian LASSO on the accuracy of genomic prediction.Mammalian genome : official journal of the International Mammalian Genome Society · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The genomic evaluation process relies on the assumption of linkage disequilibrium between dense single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) markers at the genome level and quantitative trait loci (QTL). The present study was conducted with the aim of evaluating four frequentist methods including Ridge Regression, Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO), Elastic Net, and Genomic Best Linear Unbiased Prediction (GBLUP) and five Bayesian methods including Bayes Ridge Regression (BRR), Bayes A, Bayesian LASSO, Bayes C, and Bayes B, in genomic selection using simulation data. The difference between prediction accuracy was assessed in pairs based on statistical significance (p-value) (i.e., t test and Mann-Whitney U test) and practical significance (Cohen's d effect size) For this purpose, the data were simulated based on two scenarios in different marker densities (4000 and 8000, in the whole genome). The simulated data included a genome with four chromosomes, 1 Morgan each, on which 100 randomly distributed QTL and two different densities of evenly distributed SNPs (1000 and 2000), at the heritability level of 0.4, was considered. For the frequentist methods except for GBLUP, the regularization parameter λ was calculated using a five-fold cross-validation approach. For both scenarios, among the frequentist methods, the highest prediction accuracy was observed by Ridge Regression and GBLUP. The lowest and the highest bias were shown by Ridge Regression and GBLUP, respectively. Also, among the Bayesian methods, Bayes B and BRR showed the highest and lowest prediction accuracy, respectively. The lowest bias in both scenarios was registered by Bayesian LASSO and the highest bias in the first and the second scenario were shown by BRR and Bayes B, respectively. Across all the studied methods in both scenarios, the highest and the lowest accuracy were shown by Bayes B and LASSO and Elastic Net, respectively. As expected, the greatest similarity in performance was observed between GBLUP and BRR (
Indexed as
Identifiers
38951354What 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.