Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39719001›Full record

ArticleG3 (Bethesda, Md.)2025

Why usefulness is rarely useful.

Fangyi Wang, Mitchell J Feldmann, Daniel E Runcie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in G3 (Bethesda, Md.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

3 authors.

Fangyi WangDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-2687-9909
Mitchell J FeldmannDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7257-3401
Daniel E RuncieDepartment of Plant Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3008-9312

Funding

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 026418HUnited States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Mate selection plays an important role in breeding programs. The Usefulness Criterion was proposed to improve mate selection, combining information on both the mean and standard deviation of the potential offspring of a cross, particularly in clonally propagated species where large family sizes are possible. Predicting the mean value of a cross is generally easier than predicting the standard deviation, especially in outbred species when the linkage of alleles is unknown and phasing is required. In this study, we developed a method for estimating phasing accuracy from unphased genotype data on possible parental lines and evaluated whether the accuracy was sufficient to predict family standard deviations of possible crosses. We used simulations spanning a wide range of genetic architectures and used genotypes from a real strawberry breeding population to evaluate the conditions when usefulness could be accurately predicted. We found that with highly accurate computational phasing, predicting family standard deviations and usefulness criteria for potential crosses yields benefit over simply selecting crosses based on predicted family means only at high selection intensity and high heritability and with small numbers of QTL. However, even then the gain from using the family usefulness is small.

Indexed as

FragariaPlant BreedingAllelesComputer SimulationCrosses, GeneticGenotypeModels, GeneticQuantitative Trait LociSelection, Geneticcross selectionfamily varianceGenomic PredictionGenPredphasing errorsShared Data Resourceusefulness criterion

Identifiers

PMID39719001
PMCPMC11917469

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.