ArticlePloS one2024
Comparison of machine learning methods for genomic prediction of selected Arabidopsis thaliana traits.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Integrated Multi-Cohort Transcriptomic Analysis Reveals Molecular Networks and Signaling Pathway Landscape of Aconitine-Induced Cardiotoxicity and Myocardial Injury.Cardiovascular toxicology · 2026Article
- Which RJournal of human genetics · 2026Article
- Within-sibling attenuation of polygenic risk score accuracy: investigating the effects of principal component analysis, LD score regression, and mixed model association in the UK Biobank.Human genetics · 2026Article
- Genomic prediction with kinship-based multiple kernel learning produces hypothesis on the underlying inheritance mechanisms of phenotypic traits.Genome biology · 2025Article
- Benchmarking of feed-forward neural network models for genomic prediction of quantitative traits in pigs.Frontiers in genetics · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present a comparison of machine learning methods for the prediction of four quantitative traits in Arabidopsis thaliana. High prediction accuracies were achieved on individuals grown under standardized laboratory conditions from the 1001 Arabidopsis Genomes Project. An existing body of evidence suggests that linear models may be impeded by their inability to make use of non-additive effects to explain phenotypic variation at the population level. The results presented here use a nested cross-validation approach to confirm that some machine learning methods have the ability to statistically outperform linear prediction models, with the optimal model dependent on availability of training data and genetic architecture of the trait in question. Linear models were competitive in their performance as per previous work, though the neural network class of predictors was observed to be the most accurate and robust for traits with high heritability. The extent to which non-linear models exploit interaction effects will require further investigation of the causal pathways that lay behind their predictions. Future work utilizing more traits and larger sample sizes, combined with an improved understanding of their respective genetic architectures, may lead to improvements in prediction accuracy.
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.