Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41811935›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Decoding living systems: Reassessing crop model frontiers via biological dynamics and optimized phenotype.

Edgar S Correa

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

1 author.

Edgar S CorreaPontificia Universidad Javeriana, School of Engineering, Bogota, Colombia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1477-6825

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Modeling and optimizing phenotypic performance of biological systems demands understanding how physiological processes mediate genotype-by-environment interactions. While AI-driven approaches achieve predictive accuracy, they often function as black boxes that obscure biological causality. Process-based models address this limitation through explicit mechanistic representation, enabling both quantitative optimization and biological interpretation. This study contributes an inverse engineering framework with three integrated layers: sensitivity analysis validating biological coherence, genetic algorithm exploring virtual phenotypes to identify adaptive strategies, and similarity analysis quantifying routes from computational optima to field-validated cultivars. Sensitivity analysis identified eight genetic-based coefficients governing yield with robust rankings (95% CI width = 0.04). The genetic algorithm explored 5,364 virtual cultivars across 40 generations, revealing two strategies: extended growth (116 days) achieving 4,837 kg/ha under higher water availability (815 mm, field capacity 0.30), and shortened cycles (100-103 days) maintaining high efficiency (HI: 0.55-0.58) under water deficit (540 mm, field capacity 0.23)-covering 89% of the cultivation area. Similarity analysis against 21 field-validated cultivars identified WAB56-50 (70.7%) and DKAP2 (67.2%) as breeding candidates, quantifying a 22-30% genetic gap between current germplasm and computational optima. The framework, built upon 3 years of field characterization, compressed the evaluation and selection cycle, enabling adaptation across regional precipitation gradients identified through GMM-based classification. The principles demonstrated here extend across biological scales-from organismal phenotyping to cellular systems where biological dynamics can be modeled and traits measured.

Indexed as

Crops, AgriculturalModels, BiologicalAlgorithmsGenetic AlgorithmsGenotypePhenotype

Identifiers

PMID41811935
PMCPMC12978445

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.