Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40065232›Full record

ArticleGenetics, selection, evolution : GSE2025

Genomic selection in pig breeding: comparative analysis of machine learning algorithms.

Ruilin Su, Jingbo Lv, Yahui Xue, Sheng Jiang, Lei Zhou, Li Jiang, Junyan Tan, Zhencai Shen, Ping Zhong, Jianfeng Liu

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Genetics, selection, evolution : GSE, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing 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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors.

Ruilin Su *College of Science, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100083, China.
Jingbo Lv *College of Science, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100083, China.
Yahui Xue *College of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Sheng JiangCollege of Science, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100083, China.
Lei ZhouCollege of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Li JiangCollege of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China.
Junyan TanCollege of Science, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100083, China. tanjunyan0@126.com.
Zhencai ShenCollege of Science, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100083, China. zhencai688@cau.edu.cn.
Ping ZhongCollege of Science, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100083, China. zping@cau.edu.cn.
Jianfeng LiuCollege of Animal Science and Technology, China Agricultural University, Beijing, 100193, China. liujf@cau.edu.cn.

Funding

National Key R&D Programs of China 2024YFF1000100National Natural Science Foundations of China 31972563
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe effectiveness of genomic prediction (GP) significantly influences breeding progress, and employing SNP markers to predict phenotypic values is a pivotal aspect of pig breeding. Machine learning (ML) methods are usually used to predict phenotypic values since their advantages in processing high dimensional data. While, the existing researches have not indicated which ML methods are suitable for most pig genomic prediction. Therefore, it is necessary to select appropriate methods from a large number of ML methods as long as genomic prediction is performed. This paper compared the performance of popular ML methods in predicting pig phenotypes and then found out suitable methods for most traits.

resultsIn this paper, five commonly used datasets from other literatures were utilized to compare the performance of different ML methods. The experimental results demonstrate that Stacking performs best on the PIC dataset where the trait information is hidden, and the performs of kernel ridge regression with rbf kernel (KRR-rbf) closely follows. Support vector regression (SVR) performs best in predicting reproductive traits, followed by genomic best linear unbiased prediction (GBLUP). GBLUP achieves the best performance on growth traits, with SVR as the second best.

conclusionsGBLUP achieves good performance for GP problems. Similarly, the Stacking, SVR, and KRR-RBF methods also achieve high prediction accuracy. Moreover, LR statistical analysis shows that Stacking, SVR and KRR are stable. When applying ML methods for phenotypic values prediction in pigs, we recommend these three approaches.

Indexed as

BreedingGenomicsMachine LearningSelection, GeneticAlgorithmsAnimalsModels, GeneticPhenotypePolymorphism, Single NucleotideSwine

Identifiers

PMID40065232
PMCPMC11892316

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.