ArticleBriefings in bioinformatics2024
KPRR: a novel machine learning approach for effectively capturing nonadditive effects in genomic prediction.
Article in Briefings in bioinformatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- From linear models to deep learning: statistical advances in genomic selection for animal breeding.Journal of animal science and biotechnology · 2026Review
- Enhancing genomic prediction accuracy in Huaxi cattle through integration of transcriptomic data and a self-attention-based SNP selection strategy.BMC bioinformatics · 2026Article
- GWKBR: a novel method integrating machine learning and Bayesian inference framework to improve genomic prediction accuracy.Briefings in bioinformatics · 2026Article
- Genomic Selection for Economic Traits in Inner Mongolia Cashmere Goats by Integrating GWAS Prior Information.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Semi-parametric validation of genomic predictions and polygenic risk scores with the Blupf90 software suite.G3 (Bethesda, Md.) · 2025Article
- ExAutoGP: Enhancing Genomic Prediction Stability and Interpretability with Automated Machine Learning and SHAP.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Nonadditive genetic effects pose significant challenges to traditional genomic selection methods for quantitative traits. Machine learning approaches, particularly kernel-based methods, offer promising solutions to overcome these limitations. In this study, we developed a novel machine learning method, KPRR, which integrated a polynomial kernel into ridge regression to effectively capture nonadditive genetic effects. The predictive performance and computational efficiency of KPRR were evaluated using six datasets from various species, encompassing a total of 18 traits. All the traits were known to be influenced by additive, dominance, or epistatic genetic effects. We compared the performance of KPRR against six other genomic prediction methods: SPVR, BayesB, GBLUP, GEBLUP, GDBLUP, and DeepGS. For datasets dominated by additive effects, KPRR achieved superior prediction accuracies in the wheat dataset and comparable performance in the cattle dataset when compared to GBLUP. For datasets influenced by dominance effects, KPRR matched GDBLUP in accuracies in the pig dataset and outperformed GDBLUP in the sheep dataset. For datasets exhibiting epistatic effects, KPRR outperformed other methods in some traits, while BayesB showed superior performance in others. Incorporating nonadditive effects into a GBLUP model led to overall improvements in prediction accuracy. Regarding computational efficiency, KPRR was consistently the fastest, while BayesB was the slowest. Our findings demonstrated that KPRR provided significant advantages over traditional genomic prediction methods in capturing nonadditive effects.
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.