Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39942871›Full record

ArticlePlants (Basel, Switzerland)2025

Balancing Sensitivity and Specificity Enhances Top and Bottom Ranking in Genomic Prediction of Cultivars.

Osval A Montesinos-López, Kismiantini, Admas Alemu, Abelardo Montesinos-López, José Cricelio Montesinos-López, Jose Crossa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plants (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Osval A Montesinos-LópezFacultad de Telemática, Universidad de Colima, Colima 28040, Colima, Mexico.ORCID 0000-0002-3973-6547
KismiantiniStatistics Study Program, Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Yogyakarta 55281, Yogyakarta, Indonesia.ORCID 0000-0002-6105-7647
Admas AlemuDepartment of Plant Breeding, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, P.O. Box 101, SE-230 53 Alnarp, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-7056-2699
Abelardo Montesinos-LópezCentro Universitario de Ciencias Exactas e Ingenierías (CUCEI), Universidad de Guadalajara, Guadalajara 44430, Jalisco, Mexico.
José Cricelio Montesinos-LópezDepartment of Public Health Sciences, University of California Davis, Davis, CA 95616, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5017-6192
Jose CrossaColegio de Postgraduados, Montecillos 56230, Edo. de México, Mexico.

Funding

Gates Foundation INV-003439Gates Foundation INV-003439 BMGF/FCDOUnited States Agency for International Development Amend. No. 9 MTO 069033
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Genomic selection (GS) is a predictive methodology that is revolutionizing plant and animal breeding. However, the practical application of the GS methodology is challenging since a successful implementation requires a good identification of the best lines. For this reason, some approaches have been proposed to be able to select the top (or bottom) lines with more Precision. Despite the varying popularity of methods, with some being notably more efficient than others, this paper delves into the fundamentals of these techniques. We used five models/methods: (1) RC, known as the Bayesian Best Linear Unbiased Predictor (GBLUP); (2) R, which is like RC but uses a threshold; (3) RO, Regression Optimum, that leverages the RC model in its training process to fine-tune the threshold; (4) B, Threshold Bayesian Probit Binary model (TGBLUP) with a threshold of 0.5 to classify the cultivars as top or non-top; (5) BO is the TGBLUP but the threshold used is an optimal probability threshold that guarantees similar Sensitivity and Specificity. We also present a benchmark comparison of existing approaches for selecting the top (or bottom) performers, utilizing five real datasets for comprehensive analysis. For methods that necessitate a rigorous tuning process, we suggest a streamlined tuning approach that significantly decreases implementation time without notably compromising performance. Our analysis revealed that the regression optimal (RO) method outperformed other models across the five real datasets, achieving superior results in terms of the F1 score. Specifically, RO was more effective than models R, B, RC, and BO by 60.87, 42.37, 17.63, and 9.62%, respectively. When looking at the Kappa coefficient, the RO model was better than models B, BO, R, and RC by 37.46, 36.21, 52.18, and 3.95%, respectively. In terms of Sensitivity, the RO model outperformed models B, R, and RC by 145.74, 250.41, and 86.20, respectively. The second-best model was the model BO. It is important to point out that in the first stage, the BO and RO approaches train a classification and regression model, respectively, to classify the lines as the top (bottom) or not the top (not the bottom). However, both the BO and RO approaches optimize a threshold in the second stage to perform the classification of the lines that minimize the difference between the Sensitivity and Specificity. The BO and RO methods are superior for the selection of the top (or bottom) lines. For this reason, we encourage breeders to adopt these approaches to increase genetic gain in plant breeding programs.

Indexed as

bottom line selectiongenomics selectionplant breedingprediction performancetop line selection

Identifiers

PMID39942871
PMCPMC11820940

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.