ArticleBMC genomics2026
Feed-forward neural networks for genomic selection: insights into varying levels of dominance heritability.
Article in BMC genomics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Genomic selection enables the prediction of genetic and breeding values from high-dimensional marker data, improving selection efficiency in breeding programs. Feed-forward neural networks (FFNN) are a type of deep learning model that approximates complex non-linear relationships between markers and traits through interconnected layers of neurons. The purpose of this study was evaluating the predictive performance of FFNN relative to parametric methods (GBLUP, BayesB, BayesL) and other machine learning (ML) approaches, including kernel-based (Support Vector Machine, SVM) and tree-based ensemble methods (Random Forest, RF), across traits with varying levels of narrow-sense (additive) heritability ([Formula: see text]= 0.05, 0.20, 0.50) and dominance heritability ([Formula: see text] = 0.00, 0.05, 0.10, 0.20). Prediction accuracy was evaluated using Pearson correlation coefficients (PCC), mean absolute error (MAE), and mean squared error (MSE), while model stability was assessed via the coefficient of variation across 100 Monte Carlo replicates. Additionally, Cohen’s d effect size was used to assess the magnitude of differences among methods. The results indicate that in the absence of dominance, parametric methods showed higher PCC, but this advantage disappeared in the presence of dominance, such that in traits with low to medium additive heritability, ML methods showed higher PCC. Among ML methods, FFNN, RF and SVM reported higher PCC at low, medium and high additive heritabilities, respectively, in the absence of dominance. Also, method FFNN was able to perform better in the presence of dominance, especially when the additive heritability was high. An increase in dominance heritability at medium to high levels of additive heritability led to a decrease in PCC in all methods, which was not observed in low additive heritability. The FFNN method showed the highest MAE and MSE in the absence of dominance, which with increasing dominance heritability, this method was able to have the best performance among all methods. The highest stability of estimates was observed in traits with high additive heritability across 100 Monte Carlo replicates. Dominance variance substantially influenced predictive patterns, underscoring the importance of accounting for non-additive genetic effects in model selection. These findings highlight the effectiveness of FFNN for accurate and robust genomic prediction across complex genetic architectures and suggest that incorporating dominance heritability can optimize model performance in breeding programs.
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.