ArticlePlanta2025
A comparative study highlights superiority of LSTM in crop genomic prediction.
Article in Planta, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- AI-integrated digital breeding for crop improvement.Frontiers in plant science · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
MAIN
conclusionWe systematically evaluated three key determinants affecting prediction accuracy and the algorithm performance differences based on fifteen state-of-the-art GP methods, and found LSTM suitable for capturing additive and epistatic effects. Genomic prediction (GP) has been developed as an important method supporting crop breeding. By utilizing the phenotype values result from GP, breeders could make decisions in the seedling stage that consequently benefit for cost saving. In recent years, machine learning emerged as an efficient technology to solve modeling problems in many fields, including crop breeding. However, numerous modeling approaches have hindered the application of GP since breeders struggle to choose. Therefore, a comprehensively methodological research with guiding significance is extremely necessary. In the present study, we systematically evaluated three key determinants affecting prediction accuracy and the algorithm performance differences based on fifteen state-of-the-art GP methods. As for genomic feature processing, we found feature selection (SNP filtering approach) performed better than feature extraction (PCA method). Specifically, the feature relationship dependent methods (GBLUP, RNN, and LSTM) as well as DNN architecture showed superior performance with feature selection. Marker density analysis showed positive correlation with prediction accuracy in a limited threshold. Comparison on effect of population size demonstrated a positive correlation between trait genetic complexity and the optimal population size required. By testing fifteen modeling methods, we found LSTM network displayed superior performance, achieving the highest average STScore (0.967) across six datasets. Further research using all cell states or the latest cell states of LSTM inputs demonstrated its architecture particularly adept with capturing additive and epistatic QTL effects among SNPs. In conclusion, our findings provide basic principles for implementing GP in breeding project to maximize prediction accuracy while maintaining cost-effectiveness.
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.